Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

WRITERS TO THE SIGNET WIDOWS' FUND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

Aberdeenshire

Mr. Spence: asked the Postmaster-General how many applications for the installation of telephones are outstanding in Aberdeenshire; how many are in burghs and how many in landward areas; and the total numbers that have been outstanding for over two years.

The Postmaster-General (Dr. Charles Hill): As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:


—
Burghs
Landwad areas
Totals


Total applications outstanding at 31.3.55
1,731
927
2,658


Applications out standing over two years
241
217
458


There were 2,276 new demands during the year.

Mr. Spence: asked the Postmaster-General how many new subscribers have been connected to the telephone system in Aberdeenshire during the past twelve months; and how this compares, on a percentage of population, with the rest of Scotland.

Dr. Hill: One thousand, seven hundred and twenty-two; installation was held up somewhat by storm damage. The figure represented 5·2 per cent. of the telephones supplied in Scotland during the year, whereas Aberdeenshire has 6·4 per cent. of the population of Scotland.

Mr. Spence: Can my right hon. Friend say if he expects an increase in the rate of installation of telephones in Aberdeenshire in the near future?

Dr. Hill: In the next two years it is hoped to introduce new equipment in twenty-four exchanges and to carry out twelve new projects of cable laying.

Sir T. Moore: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that no preference is given to Aberdeenshire over the rest of Scotland?

Dr. Hill: No preference is revealed by these figures.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Old-Age Pensions (Payment, Elsing)

Mr. Dye: asked the Postmaster-General what provision he is making for old age-pensioners to draw their pensions in the parish of Elsing since the closing of Elsing Post Office, in view of the fact that some dozen old-age pensioners are 80 years of age and have a journey of six miles to the nearest post office, there being no public transport service.

Dr. Hill: Beginning this week, temporary post office counter services, including the payment of pensions, will be provided in Elsing for a few hours each Friday until a new sub-office can be opened.

Mr. Dye: Whilst thanking the right hon. Gentleman for the speed with which he has dealt with this matter since the Question was put on the Order Paper, may I ask that in future, whenever post offices are closed in villages where a big proportion of the population is of old-age pensioners, some immediate steps should be taken to meet their needs?

Dr. Hill: In this case immediate steps have been taken because on 1st June the service had to end and since then we have been searching for someone to take over —indeed we are still searching—and we made these arrangements in the interim.

Overseas Parcels (Emergency Arrangements)

Mr. Janner: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that during the railway strike his Department refused parcels over eight ounces for export; that from 13th June parcels for export were accepted for all countries excepting the United States of America, Canada, South Africa and the Gold Coast; that parcels for those countries had to be handed in at Southampton and Liverpool, causing expense and inconvenience to firms carrying on the export trade; and whether he will ensure that in any emergency in the future every facility shall be given for the transmission of parcels and letters in connection with our export trade, particularly for those destined to the dollar countries.

Dr. Hill: Facilities for sending parcels and heavier letter packets overseas by air were restored on 4th June. On 9th June arrangements were made for limited acceptance of overseas surface parcels. Then, the weight limit for all kinds of letter packets, including overseas, was increased to 1 lb. I can assure the hon. Member that in any future emergency the Post Office will continue to follow the policy of providing the best service which the resources available permit, with particular regard to the needs of the export trade.

Mr. Janner: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that his certainly was not the best arrangement? It was a great disservice from the export point of view, for example, that a parcel which normally would cost about 17s. would actually cost f12 2s. to send to America by air mail. Why has the right hon. Gentleman made the condition that parcels must be delivered at Southampton and Liverpool? Did he expect a courier service to be run by a firm from John O' Groats to Southampton in order that it could have parcels delivered for export purposes?

Dr. Hill: I sought at the earliest moment to make the dispatch of overseas parcels possible. On 4th June the air parcels service was established completely, from 9th June the overseas surface parcels service was re-established. It was necessary to require at the outset that the parcels should be delivered to five main ports. May I add that the statement in

the Question that posting to the countries named was not possible is not accurate, for it was possible from 4th June.

Mr. Bottomley: Bearing in mind the harmful effect on our vital export trade, could the Postmaster-General tell us what representations, if any, were made to him by the President of the Board of Trade?

Dr. Hill: I should require notice of that question.

Mr. Nabarro: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the general public and the great bulk of the business community viewed with approbation and enthusiasm the emergency arrangements which his Department made?

Sub-Postmasters (Interrogations)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Postmaster-General under what circumstances a sub-postmaster who is to be interrogated as a possible offender by an officer of the Investigation Branch is allowed, under his regulations, to have his solicitor present when such interrogation takes place.

Dr. Hill: The rules for sub-postmasters do not provide for the presence of a solicitor at interrogations. I am examining the present procedure.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: While welcoming the undertaking to look into this matter, which, I hope, will lead to some much-needed reform, may I ask the Postmaster-General to note that I am nevertheless raising the case of Mr. Turvey in Friday's Adjournment debate, in which this will be only one of the many serious issues involved?

Oral Answers to Questions — INDEPENDENT TELEVISION AUTHORITY

Advertising

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Postmaster-General if he will make available to hon. Members a copy of the rules under paragraph 3 of the Second Schedule to the Television Act, 1954, relating to periods of advertising in commercial television programmes.

Dr. Hill: The rules under paragraph 3 of the Second Schedule relate to intervals between periods of advertising and not to


the duration or number of advertising periods—the latter are proper to be settled under paragraph 2 of the Schedule. Paragraph 3 also deals with classes of broadcasts from which advertisements are barred. I have placed in the Library copies of the arrangements and rules made under both paragraphs.

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Postmaster-General whether advertising documentaries and shoppers' guides are excluded from the times allowed for advertising in the rules authorised by him for commercial television.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Postmaster-General why he has approved the exceeding of the limit of 10 per cent. of the total time allocated for advertising in commercial television programmes; and to what extent his regulations will allow this time limit to be exceeded by additional items described as advertising magazines and advertising features.

Dr. Hill: The I.T.A. has arranged that the amount of time given to advertising will not exceed six minutes an hour, averaged over the whole day's programmes, excluding shoppers' guides and advertising documentaries from the calculation. These arrangements do not fall within the scope of any rules I have to make under the Second Schedule.

Mr. Edwards: Is the Postmaster-General not aware that there is no provision whatever in the Act whereby advertising documentaries shall be excluded from the description of "advertisement"? Is he also aware that one of the companies today has announced that it will have a shopping documentary at 4 o'clock on Saturdays and another at 5.15? If one adds to this the six minutes also, it means that half the time will be taken up with advertising. How does the right hon. Gentleman justify that, in view of the assurances which he has given?

Dr. Hill: In the second paragraph of the Second Schedule, to which the right hon. Member has referred, the responsibility is put upon the Authority to secure that the amount of time given to advertising in the programmes shall not be so great as to detract from the value of the programmes as a medium of entertainment, instruction and information. As

matters stand, it seems that the Authority, conscious of its responsibilities, is doing its best to carry them out, and I suggest that until there is reason to suppose that the Authority is not carrying out its duty, we should give it our full confidence and allow it to continue its work.

Mr. Edwards: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question. Is he not aware that in the Act there is no provision for excluding advertisement documentaries from the description of advertising matter? Is he not aware of that, or is he conniving, as, apparently, the Assistant Postmaster-General said in the Adjournment debate, with the advertisers in breaking the Act of Parliament?

Dr. Hill: I am aware of the definition of "advertisement." There is no conniving. The present position was forecast by my hon. Friend in the debate in June last year, and it was given in an answer to a Question on 23rd March by the Economic Secretary.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the Postmaster-General aware that both the House and the public outside have been completely hoodwinked and misled by the Government into believing that 10 per cent. was to be the maximum time allowed for advertising, whereas, in fact, it is a minimum and the maximum might be anything. Even the right hon. Gentleman does not know what the maximum is.

Dr. Hill: It has been clearly explained to this House what the maximum is, and that, in that calculation, shoppers' guides and documentaries are excluded. There has been no doubt about the fact that this House has approved the Act and that the country has endorsed that decision.

Mr. Edwards: There is no need for the right hon. Gentleman to lose his temper. Is it not the fact that the Act does not provide for excluding this form of advertisement? Why has he agreed to it?

Dr. Hill: There is nothing in the Act which prevents the inclusion of shoppers' guides and documentaries in the programmes to be provided. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman's indignation is leading him into inaccuracies.

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Postmaster-General why, having regard to Section 3 (3) of the Television Act, 1954, he has approved paragraph 9 of the Principles for Television Advertising.

Dr. Hill: Paragraph 9 of the "Principles" is specifically limited to competitions allowable under Section 3 (3) of the Act, and I see no conflict between them.

Mr. Edwards: In view of the fact that the Act provides that no prizes or gifts of significant value may be offered on commercial television, is it with the knowledge of the Postmaster-General that the Associated Rediffusion company today advertises that it will provide big prizes? Has the right hon. Gentleman given any direction or advice as to what is the measure of "significant value"?

Dr. Hill: The right hon. Gentleman's Question relates to paragraph 9 of the Principles, which have been published. He will appreciate that paragraph 9 refers to advertisements allowable under Section 3 (3) of the Act. If the right hon. Gentleman knows of particular instances suggesting that the Act or this arrangement is to be broken, I shall be very glad to look into them.

Mr. Edwards: The right hon. Gentleman persists in misunderstanding me. Has he given any advice as to what is a prize or gift of significant value, as referred to in the Act? If not, perhaps he will tell us why one of the companies advertises that it is going to give big prizes.

Dr. Hill: The Independent Television Authority is the responsible body, which I am content to trust in this direction until there is reason to the contrary.

Mr. Edwards: If the right hon. Gentleman is content to leave it to the Authority, why did he put up the Assistant Postmaster-General last week to defend it and to speak on its behalf in this House?

Dr. Hill: Because it is customary for the Assistant Postmaster-General to reply to Adjournment debates on behalf of the Post Office.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Meteorological Office

Mr. Dodds: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what arrangements have now been made by the Meteorological Office for studying the problem of weather modification.

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he will consider carrying out the rain-making experiments which the Meteorological Office propose to undertake this summer off the coast, so that, if successful, the clouds will precipitate their rain over the sea instead of over the land, thus giving more hours of sunshine on the land.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): I hope that field trials will begin in the near future. Early results cannot be expected since careful measurements over a long period will be necessary to detect any increase in rainfall over that which would have occurred naturally. We cannot make these tests off the coast because we could not arrange for the necessary measurements of rainfall to be made. Indeed, there is at present no reliable method of measuring rainfall at sea.

Mr. Dodds: Where are these experiments to take place? Can the Minister give an assurance that they will in no way destroy any hope of our getting a little sun this summer?

Mr. Ward: I have already announced that these experiments will be made on Salisbury Plain. As regards the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, of course there is no question of turning fine weather into rainy weather, but merely of increasing rain which probably would have fallen anyway.

Mr. de Freitas: Since these experiments may succeed, has consideration been given to the legal implications of a deluge which is created in circumstances in which the Meteorological Office claims that in law it is not an act of God?

Mr. Ward: We are watching the legal position very carefully.

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what he has done to bring to the notice of farmers the Meteorological Office's Special Service No. 6 under which, in return for a


small fee, farmers can be notified of the likelihood of fine or drying weather to enable them to plan their work.

Mr. Ward: The service is brought to the notice of farmers through the National Agricultural Advisory Service and in farming publications. It has also been referred to in broadcasts about farming, and pamphlets giving details of this and of other meteorological services of special interest to farmers are distributed at the main agricultural shows. I am grateful to the hon. Member for this opportunity to add to the publicity.

Personal Cases

Mr. Dodds: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air, in view of the recent discharge of a sportsman, details of which have been sent to him, if he will discharge 2731286 A.C.2 Thaine, S.G., now serving in Iraq, who as the result of an accident on 18th July, 1954, when two toes were broken, is now handicapped by a big toe centre joint being devoid of movement and walks with a limp and in recent weeks has been twice in hospital.

Mr. Ward: This airman has recently been found temporarily unfit for service, and is being returned to the United Kingdom. I understand that the reasons are unconnected with the slight disability of one foot, but I am looking into the case further and will write to the hon. Member as soon as my inquiries are Complete.

Mr. Dodds: I would like to thank the Minister for taking action in this case. Is he aware that lots of action has been taken before in the hope that this man would be discharged from the Royal Air Force but that until now it does not seem as though any sympathy whatever has been given to the case?

Mr. Ward: As I said, this man is on his way home. When he gets here, he will go before another medical board. I should prefer to reserve my judgment until that happens.

17 and 18. Mr. Lewis: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air (1) why the Royal Air Force has rejected the services of a man, of details of whose case he has been informed, because of a foot disability, and has accepted another man, of whom he has also been informed, who is more seriously disabled;

(2) if he will give full details of the actual service rendered by a leading aircraftman, particulars of whose case have been supplied to him; the time that this National Service man has been sick, excused parades, and excused wearing boots: and the reasons for keeping this man in the Royal Air Force.

Mr. Ward: The airman who is being discharged suffers from a disability which is considered likely to be aggravated by the normal conditions of Service life.
The other airman referred to by the hon. Member entered the Royal Air Force on 18th October, 1954. He completed the first half of the recruits' training course and the less strenuous parts of the second half. During the past two months he has been training as an instrument mechanic. From early December until mid-February he was at a medical rehabilitation unit. He was given seven days' convalescent leave and has since had fourteen days' sick leave. He was excused wearing boots almost since entry, and parades since the beginning of December.
This airman is being retained in the Royal Air Force because his disability is considered likely to respond to treatment. If it does not so respond in a reasonable period we shall review his case again.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that before this man went into the Forces the medical board refused to grade him because of his disability, that he had to undergo a special examination, that he was grade A 4/G 2 permanently, that he has not been able to wear boots during the whole time he has been in the Forces, that he has been excused all parades, all drills, all P.T. and every other type of activity, and that his feet are getting worse, notwithstanding that he has had special insoles supplied to him? Does the hon. Gentleman not feel that this man, particularly when the medical experts have said that his feet are getting worse, should be discharged, as others have been?

Mr. Ward: No, Sir. He has not received his special insoles yet. The sorbo-rubber ones which he is wearing at the moment are only temporary, until the special ones are ready. I do think that before we come to a decision we should ascertain whether the insoles improve his condition.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order. Is it right for the Under-Secretary of State to make a statement definitely not in accordance with the facts? I spoke to this man yesterday, and he tells me he has been compelled to wear insoles, which the medical experts admit are making his feet worse. What is this man to do?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot deal with a point of order like that.

Mr. Ward: The facts are simply these, that he was issued with some sorbo-rubber insoles—

Mr. Lewis: Making his feet worse.

Mr. Ward: —pending the production of the special ones. He did not like wearing the temporary ones, and asked the medical officer if he need go on wearing them, and he was given permission not to wear them.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the Royal Air Force so hard up for men that it requires to keep a man of this sort? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is undoubtedly some disquiet amongst hon. Members and in the country about the discrimination exercised by the Royal Air Force, whereby one man is accepted and another man rejected?

Mr. Ward: I do realise that, of course, but I think it is most important to look at each case carefully on its own merits. The moment we try to lay down rules we shall find ourselves being very unfair to many people. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I shall continue to examine each case carefully on its merits, and if I feel that it is not doing a man any good to stay in the Air Force, and if his condition is likely to deteriorate because of Service life, I shall release him.

Mr. Lewis: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Dodds: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air when it is proposed to discharge 2739651 Aircraftman, Second Class, John Albert Letman, who has been continuously ill since childhood, has undergone two major operations, suffers from a damaged hip that gives

pain and, despite having been in the Royal Air Force for eight months, has done no basic training, has been excused many duties and is grade 4.

Mr. Ward: Although this airman has been assessed as medically fit for the trade in which he is now training he is undoubtedly a borderline case, and after careful consideration I have decided that the balance of advantage lies in discharging him from the Air Force.

Mr. Dodds: Why on earth do we have to have rows in this House to get justice as between man and man? Does not the Under-Secretary of State appreciate that Members on this side of the House agreed to National Service on the ground that there would be fair play? It is certainly not taking place today.

Mr. Ward: I am certainly not afraid of what the hon. Member may say when I come to a conclusion about the discharge of a man from the Royal Air Force. He can say exactly what he likes about it. I shall continue to examine each of these cases carefully, and when I feel that a man ought to be discharged I shall discharge him.

Discharged National Service Men (Physical Defects)

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how many National Service men have been accepted into the Royal Air Force in each of the last three years; how many were discharged in each year for physical defects; and how many applications for such discharge were made and rejected.

Mr. Ward: As the reply to the first two parts of the Question is a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. There are standing arrangements for the discharge of any man who is assessed below the medical standard for retention in the Royal Air Force, or whose medical condition makes retention inadvisable. Applications by or on behalf of the man are not necessary, and no central record is kept of any which may be made.

Mr. Hamilton: May I ask the hon. Gentleman for an assurance that if an operation is called for, in the case of a man who has physical defects, and the


operation proves successful, such a man will be recalled to the Service, if his physical condition is so improved?

Mr. Ward: I really do not think it would be right to lay down any hard-and-fast rules in these matters. Each case is different, and each one must be considered on its merits.

Mr. Hamilton: Can the hon. Gentleman give any instance of a man having been recalled after an operation has improved his condition to that extent?

Mr. Ward: I should like to have notice of that question.

Following is the table:


—
1952–53
1953–54
1954–55


Number of National Service men entered
36,130
36,639
36,093


Number of National Service men discharged on medical grounds
1,323
1,115
886



(3·7 per cent.)
(3·0 per cent.)
(2·4 per cent.)

Notes:

(1) The years are the financial years in each instance.

(2) The figures given include National Service officers.

(3) The figures for National Service men discharged on medical grounds include discharges on account of mental, as well as of physical, defects. Separate figures for discharges on account of physical defects are not available.

Mails and Freight (Flying Hours)

Air Commodore Harvey: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how many flying hours were carried out by the Royal Air Force during the recent strike in connection with the carrying of mails and freight on behalf of public services.

Mr. Ward: Two hundred and nineteen.

Air Commodore Harvey: Will my hon. Friend express the thanks of many of us who are indebted for the valuable work carried out during the recent emergency?

Mr. Ward: Yes. I am very glad to associate myself with the tribute which my hon. and gallant Friend has paid.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Tyne Tunnel Site (Minister's Visit)

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether, when the railway dispute is over, he will fix a date to visit the site of the proposed Tyne tunnel.

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): Gladly, Sir.

Dame Irene Ward: May I ask my right hon. Friend if we can correspond on fixing the date?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am bound to say that I had not realised that my hon. Friend found any difficulty in corresponding with me.

Forth Crossing

Major Anstruther-Gray: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will make a statement on the Forth road crossing; and, in particular, on the progress made in the technical examination of the tube proposal.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The investigation which I referred to in my reply to the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) on 14th June is now in progress. It will inevitably take some time.

Major Anstruther-Gray: Has my right hon. Friend any idea how long it is likely to take? Does he expect it to conclude before the Summer Recess or before Christmas? Will he stress the need for urgency in this matter?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am sure that the extremely experienced men who are undertaking this examination realise the anxiety of my hon. and gallant Friend and the House that they should do their work as quickly as is consistent with doing it properly.

Mr. Woodburn: Whilst appreciating the need for care in this matter, may I ask if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the congestion on the Forth ferry is becoming worse and worse, and that it is becoming extremely difficult to get cars over by means of these boats? Would the right hon. Gentleman look into the question whether a further improvement can be made in the interregnum?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Speaking from memory, either I or my right hon. Friend the present Colonial Secretary answered a Question a little time ago indicating that the British Transport Commission is proposing to improve the ferry facilities over the Firth of Forth.

Trunk Road Improvement, Gun Hill

Mr. Alport: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is satisfied that the proposed improvement to the trunk road at Gun Hill, near Dedham, will increase its safety; and whether he will consider substituting for this scheme a road by-passing Stratford St. Mary's.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes, Sir". The by-pass is an expensive long-term project which is a great deal more than a substitute for the present proposal.

Mr. Alport: What is the estimated cost of the improvement which is now proposed? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the county council which is also interested in this matter is not convinced that the improvement which he intends to undertake will produce the additional safety which is so urgently necessary on this part of the road.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The improvement mentioned in the Question involves the widening and realignment of this road and the addition of footways. I think that it will make some improvement, at a cost of £8,500 compared with £300,000 for the by-pass.

Advertisements (Siting)

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what steps are taken to ensure that reflecting advertisements are kept away from corners and dangerous parts of roads in cases where these might distract the attention of drivers at critical moments.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Local planning authorities control the display of advertisements in the interests of amenity and public safety. As regards safety, they are required to consult me in respect of trunk roads, for which I am the highway authority, and it is their practice to consult the local highway authority in respect of other roads.

Mr. Woodburn: Would the right hon. Gentleman look into this question and see whether, if an advertiser is given the right to erect a sign immediately facing a sharp turning, it is possible to make that right conditional upon the advertisement also giving guidance to the driver that there is a sharp turning and not distract his attention when he ought TO be looking at the road?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I should be rather doubtful about incorporating traffic directions in advertising, since it might add to confusion. The right hon. Gentleman can be assured that, in exercising the authority to which I referred in my main answer, I take the greatest care to ensure that advertisements are not erected where they will seriously distract drivers.

Dunham Toll Bridge

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is aware of the hardship and inconvenience caused to motorists and pedestrians using the Dunham Bridge on the A57 road from Nottinghamshire to Lincolnshire by the imposition of tolls; and whether he will meet the wishes of the Nottingham County Council by abolishing these tolls.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am aware of the existence of this toll bridge, about which the Nottinghamshire County Council has been good enough to write to me. I am at present, however, concentrating on physical improvements in our highway system, and have no funds available for the redemption of tolls.

Mr. Bellenger: Does not this Question and the next Question on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Sir L. Ropner) show the irritation which exists among the motoring and pedestrian public at the continued imposition, in this modern age, of tolls which may have served a good purpose in the past? Will the right hon. Gentleman not take steps immediately to get rid of this anachronism while he can do it cheaply?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As I said in my main answer, I am concentrating on actual road construction all the funds that are available. The right hon. Gentleman may recall that a decision to do that


was taken by the Administration in 1949, of which I think he was an ornament.

Mr. de Freitas: Is it not a fact that vehicles have to slow down at this bridge in order that tolls can be collected and that that adds very greatly to the traffic congestion?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That may well be so, but as the hon. Member knows well, there is a great deal of work to be done on our highways system, and I think that I must concentrate the funds that are available on the construction of roads in preference to redeeming tolls.

Selby Toll Bridge

Sir L. Ropner: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether his Department will negotiate for the purchase of the toll rights of Selby toll bridge.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I will go into the question of these rights when I am able to provide for the inclusion of a new bridge here in the programme.

Sir L. Ropner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that as long ago as 1939 negotiations for the purchase of these rights were far advanced? Does he not share the view that the problem of this toll bridge is at least as urgent now as it was in 1939?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I understand, and I am well aware, of my hon. and gallant Friend's very proper concern about the situation in connection with this bridge but, as I said in reply to a previous Question, I really must concentrate on the construction of the most needed highways and, as I said in my main answer, when that point is reached in respect of this bridge I will go into the matter of the tolls.

Miss Bacon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the condition of this bridge is an absolute disgrace, and has been for many years? Is he aware that if this bridge were free the road would be used as an alternative route between Leeds and the West Riding and the coast, and would help to relieve the appalling congestion which the right hon. Gentleman knows exists at Malton? Can he also say whether or not it is his responsibility or that of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer

to have any check on the amount of money which is collected at that toll bridge? When I go over it, I invariably get no receipt of any kind.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I would rather not answer, without notice, the question of whether the hon. Lady has been overcharged.

Miss Bacon: No, not overcharged.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I agree that the condition of the bridge leaves much to be desired. but I had better not reflect too much at this Box on what is, after all, somebody else's property.

Bridges (Repair and Maintenance)

Sir L. Ropner: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will now make a statement with regard to the progress which is being made in the negotiations between his Department and the Transport Commission for the purpose of reaching a settlement concerning the responsibility for the maintenance of road bridges over railways.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Yes, Sir. I recently sent to the seven associations representing the local authorities concerned some firm proposals made by the British Transport Commission after consultation with my Department. They are now considering them.

Sir L. Ropner: Does my right hon. Friend recall that these negotiations have now been going on for more than two years? Will he give me an assurance that energetic action will be taken to bring the negotiations to a termination?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Naturally, I should like to see them speedily concluded, but my hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate that where it is a case of negotiation with seven local authority associations, over which I have no control, I can give no guarantee that the negotiations will be concluded at a particular date, but I should like to see them concluded as quickly as possible.

Major Improvements, Dorset (Expenditure)

Mr. Crouch: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the additional sums of money he will permit to he spent on road improvements in Dorset during the next twelve months.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Government expenditure of £26,042 on major road improvements was authorised in 1954–55. In the present financial year the corresponding figure will be £55,040.

Mr. Crouch: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we are very modest in our county, and the requests we make to him are small? Is he aware that a considerable sum is required to straighten and widen the A30 road, part of which passes through our county?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I appreciate the desire of Dorset to make further improvements in its roads, but I do not think that it has done too badly this year.

Relief Roads, Newbury

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation when he expects to publish draft orders under the Trunk Roads Act, 1946, preliminary to the construction of the two relief roads in Newbury.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In August.

Accidents, Wales

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how many accidents occurred and how many persons were killed and injured in 1954 or in the latest year for which figures are available on the roads A40 from the outskirts of Ross to Abergavenny, A465 from Abergavenny to Hirwaun, A470 from Cardiff to Merthyr Tydvil, and on A48 and A4067 from the western boundary of Newport, Monmouthshire, to the northern boundary of Swansea, respectively.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The information requested by the hon. Member will take some time to collect. I will send it to him as soon as I can.

Mr. Freeman: Is it not a fact that these figures will indicate that there are many more accidents, as well as deaths and injuries, on these main roads than there are on an average on main roads throughout the country? If so, what steps is the right hon. Gentleman taking to make an immediate and steady improvement of these main roads in South Wales?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Perhaps the hon. Member will await the figures, which I will send him as soon as I can, before he draws any deductions from them.

Cromwell Road Extension

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what progress has been made with the Cromwell Road extension scheme, and with the proposed fly-over junction at Hammersmith; and, in view of the importance of this route between the centre of London and both London Airport and the west of England, what steps he will take to ensure that the scheme is completed in the near future.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Work has started on the London County Council's part of this scheme, and work on the Middlesex part of the scheme is expected to start in September. The L.C.C. and the Middlesex County Council are pressing on with the work as quickly as possible. As I explained in reply to earlier Questions, the fly-over will not be included initially.

Mr. Janner: Will the Minister say why the fly-over is not to be included, and will he give us some indication when the scheme as at present proposed is likely to be completed?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have twice already told the House that the reason the fly-over will not be included initially is that the London County Council, which is the promoting authority, does not wish to include it.

Mr. Janner: When will the scheme be completed?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Driving and Traffic Examiners

Captain Pilkington: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what plans he has for speeding up tests for would-be drivers.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Recruitment of additional examiners is being pressed forward. At the beginning of this month the Civil Service Commission announced that another thirty-one candidates had passed their competition for these posts. A


further list of successful candidates is expected in a few weeks' time. The starting pay of examiners is being increased by about £45 a year, and this will, of course, apply also to new entrants from the next competition, which will shortly be advertised.

Captain Pilkington: How many people are waiting for these tests, and are the plans which my right hon. Friend has at present for widening roads and building new roads sufficient for the number of cars coming on to the roads?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not think the second part of my hon. and gallant Friend's supplementary question arises out of his Question. His first supplementary question related to the number of applicants awaiting tests. The nearest figure I can give him is about 135,000.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is that figure of 135,000 going up or is it going down; and how many of those 135,000 are in the London area?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman would put down the second part of his supplementary question. The answer to the first part is "Both, Sir"—that is, it would go up during the summer and down during the autumn.

Mr. Teeling: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation why Mr. W. E. Barnaby, of 97, Greenfield Crescent, Brighton, who has been accepted for employment as a driving and traffic examiner under the Ministry of Transport is to be employed in Coventry when there is a similar vacancy in Hove; and why the vacancy in Hove is to be filled by a man being brought down from Manchester.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Because the post at Hove has since March been promised to the examiner stationed at Manchester, whose home is in Brighton. There were no vacancies at or near Hove which could have been offered to Mr. Barnaby when he was accepted for appointment earlier this month.

Inland Waterways

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will give a general direction to the British

Transport Commission instructing them to take steps to offer canals for sale to private enterprise undertakings when they are no longer required for use by the Commission instead of allowing them to fall into desuetude.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir. I am informed by the British Transport Commission that it is always ready to consider offers for the purchase of waterways no longer required for commercial transport, but that disposals of this kind are complicated by the fact that the Commission's ownership carries with it a wide variety of statutory and other obligations and liabilities.

Mr. Nabarro: In view of the announcement by the Commission that it proposes to withdraw from service several hundreds of miles of inland waterways, would my right hon. Friend initiate a change in procedure, if necessary through this House, in order to prevent a very workable and economic form of inland transport passing out of use altogether?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As I said in reply to a Question last week, no formal submission on this matter has been made to me by the British Transport Commission. As I have said in the Answer which I have just read out, the Commission is always ready to consider offers for the purchase of the waterways in question.

Mr. Renton: Although it may require legislation to do so, would not the best solution for the uneconomic canals be to pass them to the jurisdiction of the river boards and away from the Transport Commission?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That suggestion has already been made and is not without its merits, but the financial consequences would require a great deal of exploring.

Mr. J. T. Price: Does the Minister recollect that the canals first began to fall into ruin when they were sold to the railways, which were then part of the private enterprise system of Britain?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not know what moral, political or otherwise, the hon. Gentleman seeks to draw from that in connection with a nationalised railway system.

Railways and Canals

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will introduce legislation to remove control of the canals from the British Transport Commission and create full scale rivalry and competition between railways and canals.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir.

Mr. Nabarro: Is it not a fact that under the present arrangements the railway interests dominate the British Transport Commission, and for seven years have been busily engaged in strangling the canal interests? Does not my right hon. Friend agree that unless we can get some form of rivalry and competition between these alternative forms of transport, inevitably the canals will be said by the Commission to be totally uneconomic eventually, and will thereby entirely pass out of use?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not accept my hon. Friend's assumptions. He may be interested to know that work to improve and recondition certain canals which, in the view of the Commission, have important transport interests, is in process of being approved.

Mr. H. Morrison: Is it not true that the process of making the British Transport Commission a predominantly railway concern is the result of legislation by this Government? Is it not also true that the process of what the hon. Member described as strangling the canals started many years ago, when the private railway companies acquired the canals in order to close them?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As I told my hon. Friend, I do not accept that there is at present a process of strangling the canals. I should be happy to go into historical reminiscences with the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Nabarro: Can my right hon. Friend say how we can possibly get competition between the railways and canals, which is what we want, so long as both of them are owned and managed by the same body? Unless there are different bodies running them in competition, how is it possible to get efficiency?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is for too big a question to consider by Question and Answer at Question Time.

Mr. Monslow: Would the Minister not agree that to have an economic transport system in Britain we must have co-ordination of all three forms of transport?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is also far to big a question with which to deal at Question Time.

Flashing Indicators

Mr. Crouch: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation when he expects to receive the Report on the result of the investigation by the Road Research Laboratory into the confusion caused by flashing indicators on motor vehicles.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I hope to receive a Report on flashing indicators before the end of October.

Mr. Crouch: May I ask my right hon. Friend, who has great knowledge and considerable ability, why it has taken so long for a report on these blinking, winking lights, in view of the increasing body of public opinion that they are dangerous? Some are red, some amber and some white.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I liked the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, but as regards the second part, this matter is being examined by the Road Research Laboratory, which is a highly competent body, and I think that it would be sensible to await its Report before coming to decisions.

Head-lamps

Mr. D. Jones: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will make a statement about the steps he proposes to take in connection with universal head-lamp dipping.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As international agreement on head-lamp standardisation is bound to take time, I propose to call an early meeting of all the interests concerned in this country to work out what practical steps can be taken in the meantime to reduce the danger caused by ill-adjusted headlights.

Mr. Jones: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how long it will be before some action is taken on this matter? It is now more than four years since the attention of his Department was called to it. He told me in November last year that the matter was receiving active consideration. How much longer shall we have to wait before some action is taken?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: What I told the hon. Member in November, on the contrary, was that this matter was under international discussion over the timetable of which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, I have no control. I am anxious to make progress with this difficult matter, but I shall not be rushed into doing silly things for the sake of doing them.

Mr. Wade: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the headlamps of many modern cars are almost as dazzling when dipped as when not dipped? Can he not consult the automobile industry on the possibility of remedying this for the benefit of both pedestrians and motorists?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am in touch with the industry over that, and I think that most modern cars, as originally designed, have the headlamps properly aligned. The difficulty arises very often owing to the headlamps getting out of alignment, either as the result of time and wear or sometimes as a result of the loading of the vehicle. That is the essence of it.

Mr. Stokes: Is there any sense in waiting for this international report? Does not the Minister know that we drive on the left and everybody else on the right?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I thought that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends favoured international action.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION

Errol Airport

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what progress has been made towards the carrying out of the proposals for the establishment of Errol as an airport for the Perth-Dundee area.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have had no proposals from operators who wish to use this airport.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: But does my right hon. Friend realise that the Government of the day, as long ago as 1946, made proposals themselves to this end, and that nothing has happened since? Is he aware that locally we are coming to feel that this state of affairs has now become a permanency, and that there will be no aerodrome for that area of Scotland at all?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As my hon. and gallant Friend knows, the aerodrome is there and is available but, as he equally well knows, I have no power to compel either British European Airways or independent operators to operate a service if they do not think it worth while.

Mr. D. Jones: Does the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has been loth to grant Customs facilities to aerodromes which are already in existence preclude private operators from making any attempt to operate the aerodrome?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: There is nothing about Customs facilities in this Question.

Airport Facilities, East Scotland

Major Anstruther-Gray: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what consideration he is giving to the need for bringing into operation a civil aerodrome to serve as a port of call between Edinburgh and Aberdeen, in view of the increase in demand for air transport in the east of Scotland.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am afraid that I have had no indication from any operators of aircraft that such an airport as is suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend is required.

Major Anstruther-Gray: But in view of the fact that there is considerable potential demand on the part of passengers, could my right hon. Friend not use his good offices to encourage some airline to take an interest in this profitable service, if the aerodrome is available?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As I said in answer to the previous Question, I have no power to direct operators to operate services if they do not think that they will be remunerative, but I am always anxious to invite their attention to the desirability of having as many services as possible, including, needless to say, in Scotland.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when we on this side of the House were in office there was a great clamour for private enterprise to be allowed these facilities? Is he raising any objection to private enterprise providing these services?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am raising no objection whatsoever, and I am glad to say that under the civil aviation policy initiated by my right hon. Friend the present Colonial Secretary there has been a great expansion.

Backward-facing Seats (Survey)

Miss Burton: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the cost of, and labour involved in, the survey concerning backward-facing seats in aircraft being carried out by his Department; and when this will be completed.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Very small, Sir. I hope it will be completed by the end of July.

Miss Burton: Is the Minister aware that this survey is a complete waste of time and money? Is he further aware that this problem has been dragging on for ages, and that in Australia, for example, it has been decided to install rearward-facing seats in aircraft? When does the right hon. Gentleman intend to reach a decision on this matter?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not agree that the reaction of passengers to rearward-facing seats is a waste of time. It is important for the whole future of civil aviation, and before coming to any decision in this matter it is very proper indeed to obtain the reaction of passengers, particularly in view of the fact that restrictions might apply only to British and not to foreign aircraft.

Mr. Stokes: Is the Minister aware how very uncomfortable it is riding backward, and that if one is properly strapped in there is no advantage in riding backward at all? It is really a lot of nonsense.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question brings out what I was about to say in reply to his hon. Friend, that there is no substantial body of agreement on this very difficult subject.

Low-flying Aircraft (Advertising)

Miss Pitt: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what steps he is taking to regulate the broadcasting of advertisements from low-flying aero-planes.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In connection with the possibility of a revision of the Air Navigation Order I have recently consulted the local authority associations on this subject. I am now considering their views. At present control of aircraft engaged in advertising is confined to the normal safety rules, except that leaflets may not be dropped.

Miss Pitt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a potential danger to other road traffic when this constant and disconcerting human voice, immensely amplified, appears to fill the whole of the air and exposes road users to certain actions which may cause danger to life?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have realised for some months the possibility of difficulties of that sort. That is why I initiated discussions with the local authorities some little time ago, because I think that they must come into this matter.

MINISTER OF FUEL AND POWER

Mr. A. Roberts: asked the Prime Minister if he will take steps to appoint a junior Minister under the Minister of Fuel and Power to deal exclusively with coal production and to provide more co-ordination between the Ministry and the National Coal Board.

The Prime Minister (Sir Anthony Eden): My right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary already maintain close contact with the National Coal Board. In these circumstances I do not consider that there is a need for the change the hon. Gentleman proposes.

Mr. Roberts: Does the Prime Minister realise that such a Minister might have prevented the loss of 2 million tons of coal in Yorkshire recently? Does he also realise that the loss on imported coal of £5 million has to be borne entirely by the National Coal Board, and that the loss in 1955 will be far greater?

The Prime Minister: I think we all share the hon. Member's view about the serious consequence to which he has referred, but, as he will know, the responsibility under Statute for producing the coal rests with the National Coal Board. I would hesitate before suggesting taking any step which would result in altering the Minister's relations with the National Coal Board, which does not mean he has other than close and intimate relationships, as the hon. Gentleman knows.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Without desiring in any way to alter the relations between the Minister and the Coal Board, may I ask the Prime Minister to consider my hon. Friend's suggestion? Will he also consider that it is urgently necessary for the Government to work with the Coal Board in increasing manpower in the pits, that with investment being pushed up to £100 million a year many men are being taken off production and put to development work, and that the shortage of 15,000 or 20,000 men in the pits is the real fundamental cause of the present position?

The Prime Minister: I am not disputing the shortage of manpower. I think the whole House will agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and the Minister is in constant touch with the Coal Board about this, but Parliament did by Statute quite definitely lay down that the responsibility for producing coal rests with the National Coal Board. The House would have to ponder very carefully before spreading that responsibility in any way to Ministers.

Mr. Stokes: Whatever may be the Prime Minister's decision, might I ask him, as an interested party in this matter, whether he will take steps to ensure that the co-operation between the Ministry and the National Coal Board is such, particularly in regard to opencast working, that they will come to their decisions in time to enable those who make heavy machinery in this country to supply it, and so avoid having to purchase it in America?

The Prime Minister: I will certainly draw the right hon. Gentleman's question to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister.

Captain Orr: Can the Prime Minister say whether we are to have an opportunity in the near future to debate the

very disturbing, and indeed alarming, report of the National Coal Board.

The Prime Minister: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

ATOMIC ENERGY (CIVIL USES)

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether he will associate Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom with the programme recently officially announced by President Eisenhower to assist other nations to obtain atomic research and power reactors, with a view to furthering the peaceful use of atomic energy.

The Prime Minister: Her Majesty's Government have repeatedly indicated their willingness to co-operate with other countries in promoting the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will recall that we have taken a leading part in sponsoring the proposed International Atomic Energy Agency, whose purpose is to assist under-developed regions to share in the benefits of the peaceful uses of atomic energy, and we have offered to contribute twenty kilograms of fissile material.
I should prefer not to say more about the specific proposals made by President Eisenhower in his speech at the Pennsylvania State University until there has been more time to study them.

Mr. Henderson: Does the Prime Minister agree that the policy of bilateral agreements may lead to a dangerous situation? It will not solve the special problem of Germany nor will it meet the needs of many of the under-developed countries in Asia and Africa; and does he not consider it is vital to the development of the peaceful use of atomic energy that it should be organised on an international or regional basis? In these circumstances would he not agree that this is a matter which should certainly be discussed at the forthcoming conference in Geneva?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman probably knows that we have a series of bilateral agreements about atomic energy, with a number of countries, and we certainly do not


exclude the possibility of multilateral agreements. For the moment the Atomic Energy Agency is the body which is helping the under-developed countries and is the body which we support.

THERMO-NUCLEAR BOMB TESTS

Mrs. Castle: asked the Prime Minister when, and where, the British hydrogen bomb is to be exploded.

The Prime Minister: It would not be in the public interest for me to answer this Question.

Mrs. Castle: Will the Prime Minister tell us why the Government are being so "cagey" about this? Is it because the Government know that there is nowhere where we can explode this bomb without endangering the people of other countries by the extensive effects of the fall-out of the bomb? That being so, will we not at least take the lead in trying to get international agreement to abolish these tests?

The Prime Minister: The question was whether I could give any information about our intention and the answer is that I cannot, and the hon. Lady's Question will not lead me to do so.

Mr. Bellenger: Would it be in the public interest for the right hon. Gentleman to tell the House what the experiment is costing the country in money?

Mr. Osborne: The party opposite did not tell us in 1950.

The Prime Minister: I was trying to refrain from making that retort.

Mrs. Castle: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the facts which have come to light about the radioactive fall-out of the new uranium bomb, he will propose at the Geneva Conference next month the calling of an international conference of scientists to discuss the long-term effects of continuing nuclear explosions.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker) on 16th June.

Mrs. Castle: Is it not absurd to argue, as the right hon. Gentleman has done in

that reply, that there is no value in our co-operating with Russian scientists, when we are already doing that in the World Meteorological Office? Can he not at least get that body to conduct research into pollution of the world's atmosphere by radio-activity?

The Prime Minister: I hope that we shall get other answers a little better than we get the weather answers sometimes.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: The Prime Minister was good enough to say yesterday that he would put a copy of Dr. Libby's recent speech in the Library for the benefit of hon. Members. Would he consider also putting there a recent article by Dr. Lapp, who was formerly one of the chief atomic scientists in the service of the American Commission?

The Prime Minister: I should like to look at that suggestion. What I said yesterday was that I would lay in the Library the statement of the Atomic Energy Commission from which, I am informed, Dr. Libby's comments do not greatly differ. I should mention to the hon. Lady that, in reply to the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) yesterday, I said that the report of the Medical Research Council would be laid as soon as it became available. It will be laid as a White Paper, and I think that the House will then probably be in a better position to discuss this matter.

ARMED FORCES (RECRUITMENT)

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that, owing to the greater inducements now offered by industry in wages and amenities, the Armed Services are experiencing considerable difficulty in recruiting long-term personnel; and, as this is likely to have a cumulative effect on the efficiency of the Services and will ultimately imperil the country's safety in an emergency, if he will forthwith take steps to have the matter brought under review by the most effective means.

The Prime Minister: I am aware of the difficulties the Armed Forces are experiencing in obtaining sufficient men on long-term Regular engagements. The pay increases of April, 1954, were


designed to give increased recognition to skill and length of service, and have had useful results. The question is, however, one which my right hon. Friends the Minister of Defence and the Service Ministers are keeping under examination.

Mr. Bellenger: Bearing in mind the fact that the Prime Minister is primarily responsible in the Cabinet for defence matters, will he not call forthwith for a special report from the Service Ministers and then, after deliberation, acquaint the House with his conclusions?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence is engaged on the matter now. We are aware of the problem. It is not new, and there are many aspects to it. We cannot usefully deal with it in Question and Answer.

Mr. Alport: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the greatest attractions which could be extended to long-service soldiers would be an increase in the pension rate? They are more concerned with pensions than with the level of pay, which at present is not unsatisfactory.

The Prime Minister: There is every kind of aspect to this problem, including the civil position and its effects upon the military situation. It might be useful to debate it, but I doubt whether we can carry it much further at Question Time.

COUNCIL OF EUROPE CONSULTATIVE ASSEMBLY (UNITED KINGDOM DELEGATION)

The Prime Minister: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement about the Council of Europe.
The Consultative Assembly will meet at Strasbourg on 5th July and I have appointed eighteen delegates from the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The distribution of the appointments between the parties is the same as in the previous delegation, that is, nine members of the Conservative Party, eight members of the Labour Party, and a representative of the Liberal Party. I have also appointed a number of substitute delegates.
The appointments of the Labour and Liberal representatives and substitutes have, of course, been made on the basis

of nominations by the Leaders of those parties. It would, perhaps, be more convenient if the names were circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
The same delegation will represent the United Kingdom Parliament at the new Western European Union Assembly, which is also expected to meet at Strasbourg on 5th July. In the course of its meeting, this Assembly will, no doubt, adopt its own rules as regards substitutes. It seems probable, however, that the substitute delegates for the Council of Europe will also serve as substitutes for the Western European Union Assembly.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Does this mean that the appointments made by the Prime Minister are not of representative men and women and that the delegates will be specially selected, in the main safe, and, therefore, not in tune and harmony with our country, which desires that democracy should prevail?

The Prime Minister: I should hope that hon. Members of this House selected by the Leaders of the parties will not necessarily be regarded as unrepresentative of the House.

Following are the names:

From the Government benches:

The right hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Maclay); the hon. Members for Aberdeenshire, East (Sir R. Boothby), Belfast, South (Sir D. Campbell), Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke), Scotstoun (Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison), Bebington (Mr. Oakshott), Edgbaston (Miss Pitt), Winchester (Mr. Smithers), and Lord Chesham.

From the Labour Party:

The right hon. Members for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. J. Edwards), Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker), the hon. Members for Coventry, South (Miss Burton), Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson), the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), and Lord Henderson.

From the Liberal Party:

Lord Layton.

The following substitutes have been appointed to act for the delegates when they are absent from Strasbourg:

From the Government benches:

The hon. Members for Wells (Lieut.-Commander Maydon), Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. N. Nicolson), Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden), Sutton and Cheam (Major Sharples), and Viscount Stonehaven.

From the Labour Party:

The hon. Members for Goole (Mr. G. Jeger), Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones), and Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell).

From the Liberal Party:

The hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen).

ELECTION RETURN, KNUTSFORD (OFFICIAL REPORT)

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) yesterday drew my attention and that of the House to an omission in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 20th June. On inquiry, I find that by inadvertence a complete page of typescript containing the matter omitted was dropped and not sent to the printer. The passage left out appears in today's issue as an erratum and will, of course, be included in its proper place in the Bound Volume. On behalf of those concerned, for whom, of course, I am responsible, I desire to express my regret for this unfortunate mistake, and I am much obliged to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne for bringing it to my notice.

BILL PRESENTED

MISCELLANEOUS FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

Bill to make further provision with respect to the Civil Contingencies Fund, to authorise the making of loans for the purpose of implementing potato price schemes and an increase in the loans which may be made to the Government of Northern Ireland, to wind up the Road Fund and to make provision with respect to unclaimed Government stock and other unclaimed rights, presented by Mr. Henry Brooke; supported by Mr. Heathcoat Amory; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 15.]

Orders of the Day — EMERGENCY POWERS

Message from Her Majesty [21st June] considered.

Message again read.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, thanking Her Majesty for Her Most Gracious Message.
This Motion is in accordance with precedent, and it refers to the Message which the Home Secretary brought to the House from Her Majesty yesterday declaring the end of the state of emergency.

Question put and agreed to.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (IMPROVEMENT OF ROADS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.35 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. D. Heathcoat Amory): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The main purpose of this short Bill, which I am sure the whole House will welcome, is to give the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself power to make grants to highway authorities for the improvement of unclassified and un-adopted roads in livestock rearing areas. Before I deal with the Bill in detail, however, I should like to say a few words about the background.
The Bill is intended primarily as a measure of assistance to the upland farming and forest areas in Wales. The need for special action to deal with the problem of access roads in the Welsh upland areas was brought to the attention of the Government by the Council for Wales and Monmouthshire in two Reports made in 1950 and 1953. Among other things, these Reports drew attention to the continued drift from the rural areas of Wales and the difficulty of many Welsh upland farmers in getting out of the land the most of which it is capable and in some cases even of making the fullest use of the


Government grants available to them. In the Council's words:
…much of the farming is economically vulnerable and has to be conducted against rather heavy odds.…
I am sure that hon. Members from Wales will agree that that is not an over-statement of the position.
Hon. Members may recall that the two Reports pointed to the poor state of some of the roads in the Welsh uplands and observed that the dilapidation of the roads serving the agricultural community was quite an important factor in the situation which was resulting in some farms in Wales becoming derelict. Elsewhere in the Reports attention was drawn to the poverty of the Welsh rural authorities in terms of rateable value and rate product, and the view was clearly taken that it was beyond the powers of these authorities to restore the roads without some aid. In the Reports it was proposed that where the condition of the roads was a major obstacle to the general improvement of services and facilities or particular developments, appropriate contributions might be made to the expenditure of the highway authorities in carrying out the necessary work.
The House has already had a statement of the Government's view on these proposals in the White Paper on Rural Wales presented to the House in November, 1953. In the White Paper the Government recognised the condition of some of the minor roads in the Welsh uplands as being very poor and as possibly constituting an obstacle to development.
The White Paper pointed out that in the case of classified roads there is already in existence a system of grants by the Minister of Transport and that there it is really a matter of working existing machinery. However, there remains the problem of unclassified and unadopted roads, and these are at present ineligible for direct aid from the Government.
In some of the livestock rearing areas many of the roads have fallen, I understand, into a state so low that farms are virtually without any access at all in some instances, and, further, these roads, though adequate to the purposes for which they were originally constructed, are not capable of meeting the much heavier demands that modern agriculture puts upon them.
We have to remember that many of these farms under the Hill Farming and Livestock Rearing Acts have had quite a lot of Government money spent on them. Yet the purpose for which this expenditure was incurred has been partly defeated by the inadequacy of the access roads. At the same time, there being no grant available for the maintenance of unclassified roads, they, perhaps naturally, come low in the priorities of the highway authorities. As far as unadopted roads are concerned, although they are often public highways, they are usually the personal responsibility of the landowner concerned and they are not being dealt with generally for lack of resources. So, clearly, there is a gap in the system of rehabilitation under the Hill Farming and Livestock Rearing Acts that needs to be filled.
Perhaps I may quote from my own experience to show how real I believe this need to be. I spent an interesting day some while ago—not, I hasten to say, during the recent Election, as I was fully occupied elsewhere—in seeing something of the Welsh upland areas. I saw some of the improvement schemes which had been carried out by the aid of grants under the Livestock Rearing Act. The ones I saw seemed to me to be sound and worth while and exactly the kind of improvement which that Act was intended to encourage.
I was much impressed with the results which some of these robust farmers, as they seemed to me, were getting in the face of many obvious difficulties. The aspect of the situation that made the deepest impression on me was that of the long, narrow, hilly approach roads leading eventually to remote farms. Once or twice I was not absolutely certain whether it was a water-course or a road along which we were driving. I thought I was well acclimatised to difficult approaches in my own counties of the South-West, but after my Welsh visit I felt that my own home county was almost a built-up area. The reason for these scattered homesteads in Wales can be found in the history of the social and economic development of Wales, and the fact that the manorial system was not developed there in the same way as it was in much of the rest of Great Britain. Incidentally, I hope no one will ask me today to pronounce the names of the


places I went to during that brief but enjoyable Welsh visit.
In all these circumstances, the Government promised in the White Paper to make proposals to Parliament for enabling the Ministry of Agriculture to contribute towards the cost of improving such roads, on the condition that any unadopted road so improved would become the responsibility of the highway authority. The first object of the Bill which I am now presenting to the House is to carry out that promise.
I have dealt at length with the Welsh problem but this Measure applies impartially to similar cases in the whole of Great Britain, except certain crofting counties in Scotland about which I will say a word in a moment. I will explain why the Measure is to apply to the whole of Great Britain with that exception. In the course of our discussions with the National Farmers' Union and the County Councils' Association about the problem of these major roads, we were told that Wales was by no means in a unique position in this respect and that much the same tale could be told about hill farming and livestock rearing areas in other parts of the country. I dare say that hon. Members who know the livestock rearing areas in other parts of the country will agree with that view.
We have made some preliminary inquiries, though I am not claiming that we have been able to conduct the kind of thorough survey that was carried out by the Welsh Rural Development Panel. However, it is clear from the information we have that in some upland areas in England and Scotland there are at least substantial pockets of difficulty of much the same character as in Wales, though I think that the need for special assistance for these access roads is not on the same scale as in Wales, certainly not if we compare the respective countries as a whole. But there are certain counties or groups of counties which may well throw up comparable problems which, again, are beyond the powers of the county highway authority to deal with without assistance. So we have come to the conclusion that it would be wrong, as a matter of principle, to rule out the claims of other livestock rearing counties outside Wales for comparable assistance.
With that introduction I will now turn to the Bill itself. Clauses 1 and 2, read

together, make provision for the central proposal for Government grants to highway authorities. It is proposed that the process of making grants should be in two stages. First, under Clause 1, highway authorities may submit to the Secretary of State for Scotland or myself proposals for improving unclassified and unadopted roads serving livestock rearing areas within the boundary of the local authority, and the appropriate Minister must then consider whether to approve such proposals. Secondly, under Clause 2, the Minister may then make grants towards the expenditure incurred by the highway authority in carrying out the proposals which he may have approved under Clause 1.
Under subsection (2) of Clause 1 the possibility of approval is limited to roads in or affording access to livestock rearing areas, the improvement of which will be of benefit for purposes of agriculture or forestry.

Mr. J. T. Price: Would the right hon. Gentleman care to say whether this proposal means that in the areas designated as falling within the terms of this Bill it will be competent for the local authority to recommend grants for accommodation roads on privately-owned estates?

Mr. Amory: Yes, if the local authority then proposes to adopt those roads, but only if it so proposes. The improvement may be for an unadopted road, but the local authority will only be able to obtain a grant on condition that it then adopts the road and undertakes the responsibility for its future maintenance.
I was referring to forestry as well as agriculture. Hon. Members may recall that in the Report of the Council for Wales and Monmouthshire it was stated that
In many parts of the survey area and of the other rural areas the primary support of agriculture should be found by bringing forestry into partnership.
I believe that that is sound.
The livestock rearing areas are defined in the interpretation Clause, Clause 5, as areas "consisting predominantly of mountains, hills or heath," in which the principal industries, or one of them, are the
breeding, rearing and maintenance of sheep or cattle.


That definition, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) will remember, is more comprehensive than the definition of livestock rearing land in the Livestock Rearing Act. The reason is that the object of this Bill is to complete the job that has been started, under the Hill Farming and Livestock Rearing Acts. We are deliberately not defining land too rigidly for this purpose, our aim being to benefit upland areas as a whole. Therefore, we do not want by the definition to exclude an area simply because that area may include a few dairy farms.
Some hon. Members may perhaps feel that the assistance proposed should not be limited to livestock rearing areas as they are defined, but should be available for similar improvements in other kinds of farming areas. I understand that desire, but the answer is that the Bill stems primarily from the special needs of certain upland areas in Wales where a combination of circumstances makes the difficulties in the aggregate exceptionally formidable. The kind of circumstances I have in mind are the exceptional mileage of both the unclassified and the unadopted roads, a very scattered population, the particularly difficult geographical features, a form of agriculture which is certainly not very intensive—all these, combined with the high expenditure in terms of rates that the local authorities are already incurring on road improvement and maintenance.
The Bill proposes that the money that the Government have felt that they could make available for this purpose should be concentrated in the areas where the improvements are most needed and least likely to be provided without some special assistance.

Mr. George Brown: Clause 2 (3) says nothing specifically about the sort of grant. The kind of areas the Minister is talking about are obviously areas which are not financially well off; they are areas which are heavily depressed. Can he say what sort of grant he has in mind?

Mr. Amory: I was just about to come to that, though whether I shall be able to say as much as the right hon. Gentleman would like me to say I am not quite sure.

Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman never can, but he should have a try.

Mr. Amory: The Bill does not prescribe any rate of grant but, following other precedents for grants to local authorities—the Land Drainage Act, 1930, and the smallholdings legislation afford examples—it leaves the precise rate of grant to be determined by the Minister, subject to its being only a proportion, as the Bill says. If I may be so bold as to translate that legal qualification into plain English, it means, I imagine, less than the full cost. There is some information for the right hon. Gentleman, anyhow.
We feel that as a matter of principle it is only right that some contribution should be made by the locality. We also accept that for unadopted roads the highway authority should be given a somewhat higher rate of grant than would be given for unclassified roads, in recognition of the fact that in taking over unadopted roads, the local authority would be incurring a new liability for their maintenance, as provided in Clause 1(5).
Subject to these general principles, we propose to settle the precise rate of grant in the light of the circumstances as we find them when the time comes. We have in mind, as soon as the Bill becomes law, to invite the local authorities concerned to submit schemes for improvement for any unclassified or unadopted roads serving the areas which are eligible and which they consider require improvement. When we see the number of these schemes and the mileages—and I must admit that at present we have only a very hazy idea of the mileages which require this treatment—we shall be in a much better position to judge, in the light of consultation with the local authorities, what scales of assistance are needed.
I say straight away that we envisage a substantial contribution—something more than 50 per cent., I should think. It will depend, but two-thirds will perhaps come into the picture somewhere; perhaps even more in some cases. We shall have to see.

Sir Robert Boothby: If my right hon. Friend has no idea of the size of the grants which, as far as I can make out, will range between 30 per cent. and 90 per cent., why does he fix £4 million as the total sum? He


says that his ideas are very hazy. I should have thought that the £4 million was hazy, too.

Mr. Amory: Four million pounds is a substantial sum. The Government decided, in the light of a study of the general position which we have been able to make up to date, that that would seem to be a reasonable sum to cover the sort of mileage that our present estimates give us.
If I could give some idea, I think that the mileage will be 2,000 to 3,000 miles in total in the livestock rearing areas—something of that order. We want to keep our proposals as flexible as possible until we can get a better idea of the precise mileage and the local needs of the situation. Some of the schemes that may be put to us may be so uneconomic that we may not be able to meet them, much as we should like to. Therefore, we want to keep some flexibility until we can see the situation a bit more clearly.
I do not know where my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir R. Boothby) got the idea of 30 per cent. to 90 per cent., but I will bear in mind that he thinks that that is the range in which these grants should fall. This is an aspect which no doubt we shall discuss further in Committee.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: This £4 million is to be spread over ten years—only £400,000 a year. Does the right hon. Gentleman really envisage that this will meet the needs of these areas?

Mr. Amory: I hope it will go a very long way towards doing so. I imagine that the cost per mile of improving these roads might be between £2,000 and £3,000. Hon. Members can do a little bit of arithmetic and see how far £4 million is likely to go. I hope that it will go a very long way towards meeting the needs on the kind of total mileage to which I have referred of between 2,000 and 3,000 miles.
Hon. Members will note that seven crofting counties in Scotland are excluded under Clause 1 (1, b). They are listed in the Schedule. The reason is that already separate provision is made for them in special Scottish legislation known, I believe, as the Congested Districts (Scotland) Act, 1897. I hope that a

mere Englishman has got that rather mystifying title correct. When I saw the counties myself I was not absolutely certain how congested they were likely to be, and in what sense.
Clause 1 (5) provides that the Minister should not approve a proposal for an unadopted road unless the highway authority undertakes to adopt the road and accept responsibility for its future maintenance.

Mr. E. G. Gooch: I should like to ask a question which is of some importance. Supposing that a local authority undertakes work on a road and then adopts the road, will the authority then qualify for grants for future maintenance?

Mr. Amory: If the road is adopted, and it becomes an unclassified road, the local authority would receive no grant, though I understand that the maintenance expenditure would qualify for the Exchequer equalisation grant. If that road subsequently became a classified road, then, of course, it would.
I do not think that anyone will quarrel with the principle of subsection (5). It would be a mistake to pay a grant for the improving of a road without ensuring that definite arrangements existed for someone to be clearly responsible for maintaining the road properly thereafter.
Clause 2, which provides for the grant itself, embodies the usual requirements that it shall be in such proportion as the Minister may approve; that the expenditure shall be reasonably incurred and that the Minister must satisfy himself that the work is properly done. As for finance, Clause 2 (4) enables—it has been already referred to—a total of £4 million to be spent for this purpose over the period mentioned. As I have said, no precise estimate is possible about how this will work out. I surmise that if local authorities come forward with improvement proposals as we hope, about half, or perhap a little more than half, of the money will be devoted to the Principality.
I do not think I need make any reference to the other Clauses, except perhaps Clause 3, which enables highway authorities to accept voluntary contributions from persons interested in the improvement of roads, whether unclassified or unadopted, and provides that local authorities may enter into agreements with


such persons for that purpose. I hope that that will be of help to local authorities, particularly in carrying out the work proposed in the case of unadopted roads.
Clause 4 deals with the administrative expenses, which are very small indeed, and Clause 5 with the interpretation. I have already drawn attention to the definition in this Bill of livestock rearing areas. Clause 6 is the usual citation and extent Clause. This Bill does not cover Northern Ireland, because Northern Ireland does not possess, to any material extent, the kind of livestock rearing areas which we have defined as such in this country.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I wonder whether the Minister would indicate who actually decides whether a given area comes within the definition of the Clause. We all have an idea of what is a livestock area within the meaning of the Act. But in this case there must be administrative action taken in deciding which applications are, within the meaning of the definition, from livestock rearing areas.

Mr. Amory: I believe the answer is that a local authority would form its opinion as to whether an application came within the definition, and if the local authority believes that it did it would forward the application to the Minister. But the ultimate responsibility must, I think, be on the Minister concerned to decide whether an application falls within the definition.

Mr. Roberts: Will county councils alone decide, or can county councils refer to county agricultural executive committees?

Mr. Amory: I think that a county council may consult whom it wishes and form an opinion, but the Secretary of State for Scotland, or I, would have to be satisfied that an application fell within the definition.
This Bill has as its object the furthering of the work on which such a good start has been made under the Hill Farming and Livestock Rearing Acts for the rehabilitation of agriculture in upland areas and, more especially, to restore the fortunes of upland farms in the Principality. I am sure that this is a cause which all of us have at heart, irrespective of party, that the House will agree that this Bill

will make a useful contribution to the problem and that hon. Members will show their agreement by giving the Bill an unopposed Second Reading.

4.5 p.m.

Mr. Tudor Watkins: I wish, first, to acknowledge the great honour done me of being able to follow the Minister on behalf of my colleagues.
I was interested to learn of the journey of the Minister through some Welsh districts. The right hon. Gentleman did not signify which districts he visited, but 1 am glad of his visit from the agricultural standpoint and from the point of view of roads, and because this Bill has been introduced. From the political standpoint, I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that I am still a Member of this Chamber, and I hope that I shall be for a long time.

Mr. Amory: I am sorry to gratify the hon. Member by telling him that Brecon was included in my tour.

Mr. G. Brown: That is why my hon. Friend is still here.

Mr. Watkins: We have listened to the Minister with great attention and I wish to thank him for his references to the Welsh aspect of this Bill. Our great disappointment is that the right hon. Gentleman has not been forthcoming about the amount of the grants. All the Welsh counties, and no doubt all districts interested in the provisions contained in the Bill, will be disappointed tomorrow morning at not knowing the amount of grant which may be envisaged. That is important and I hope to deal with it later. I think we may agree with all the other aspects of the Bill, but there are some comments which I wish to make.
I would remind the House that this is not a new subject to Welsh Members of Parliament. On every occasion when there has been a Welsh debate, and when we have discussed problems of agriculture, I have drawn attention to this very important question of access roads in farming districts. And not only in debates. Month after month I have put down Questions in an effort to get something done about these roads. There has been great agitation, not only by Welsh Members of Parliament but by the Welsh Committee and


the National Farmers' Union and the Welsh Counties Committee.
Representations were made to the previous Minister for Welsh Affairs, Lord Kilmuir, and I must say that he welcomed the representations made to him. There is no doubt that he did his best, as will the present Minister, to see that we get all the help possible in dealing with rural depopulation. I accompanied a deputation of the Welsh Counties Committee to see the Minister for Welsh Affairs before this Bill was drafted and I am certain that we shall welcome most of the proposals contained in it, although I must offer some criticisms.
I am glad that the Minister paid a compliment to the Council for Wales and expressed his appreciation of the Council's memoranda in connection with this matter. I would pay tribute to the Chairman of the Rural Development Panel, Sir William Jones, for his splendid work and the excellent reports he placed before the Government. There was also the White Paper on Rural Wales in which, in paragraph 33, this problem of access roads is recognised. This Measure will benefit Wales and also the appropriate parts of England and Scotland, and I would say a word about the need for it.
There may be some people in urban areas who are wondering why this amount of money is to be spent on the rural parts of the country. I wish to advance reasons and to place them on record. I think it the desire of everyone to try to rehabilitate the countryside, and I appreciate the work which has been carried on in that respect. Now that we have modern methods of farming, the problem of access roads is accentuated. Access to farms is now far more important.
In the old days, most of the commodities were carried to and from farms by ponies, and the nearest route was taken. In many districts today problems are created by the presence of water and other obstacles on these routes. That is not conducive to modern development as we should like to see it. Modern machinery needs very good roads, and, conditions permitting, it provides aids to good husbandry. The inward transport of lime and fertilisers is as important as

the outward transport of the commodities produced on the farms.
The introduction of the hill farming and livestock rearing schemes were much welcomed, but those schemes have imposed an added problem on local authorities and the farming community. This Bill will give an opportunity to remedy some of the difficulties. Under those schemes, grants were allowed to be made towards the provision of private roads to farms, but that produced another problem. Having got these private roads, farmers found that there was no connecting road to the nearest classified or unclassified road. It left a sort of "no-man's land" for which no one took any responsibility. I hope that the Bill will remedy that position.
I do not propose to quote from the memoranda, but paragraph 146 of the second memorandum is a terrific indictment of the situation which one finds in some of the Welsh counties at the present time. One can sum it up by saying that, even in 1955, the exports from the farms have to be carried on foot. I am sure that such a situation cannot stand examination by a good House of Commons as there is at the moment, because I believe that all hon. Members are interested in the Bill.
Some time ago the county surveyors of the mid-Wales counties produced a report. It is significant that in that report attention is drawn to the fact that 11 per cent. of the hill farming schemes could not proceed because there were no good access roads. Such a situation is disastrous for the food production of this country and disastrous for the remedying of rural depopulation. Indeed, it is disastrous to all those people who are trying to do good farming at the present time.
When these schemes for hill farming were put in, those concerned were faced with a tremendous obstacle. They sought tenders for house construction and rehousing, and so on. Some were not given at all because it was impossible to get to the farms, while others of an inflated character were given which the farmers had to accept. I am sure that it is much better to pay grants towards a road than to pay an excess grant owing to non-access because of bad roads.
I hope the Minister will look into some of the things that I intend to suggest to him and that, if he cannot reply to them today, they will be thoroughly dealt with during the Committee stage. First, I wish to challenge the Government on the fact that this is not exactly the sort of Bill that was first introduced last March. Many changes have been made in it, and no doubt we shall differ as to whether those changes are good or bad. There is one change at which I am surprised.
It is true that there are two Ministers concerned. I hope that they will agree to one of them taking charge, because we do not want it passed from one Department to another if progress is to be made with the Bill. Clause 1, as the Minister said, deals with the improvement of roads in livestock rearing areas. There are areas which go in for fatstock, crops and milk production on a large scale. These are excluded. The whole of Wales is not affected by this Clause and the County of Anglesey, in particular, does not come under it because it has no livestock rearing scheme. I would remind the Government there is heavy unemployment in Anglesey at the present time. Perhaps the bringing in of Anglesey would help to alleviate that unemployment.
Unadopted roads have been a nightmare to everybody for many years, and I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on being the first Minister to do something about them. In Brecon, we have sixty such roads 50 miles long and the county has been considering their adoption for a very long time. I hope that under this Bill something will be done in that area. In connection with these sixty roads, there are about forty farms, which means that about 21¼ miles of new road will have to be constructed. On average, it will cost £2,500 per mile to construct or reconstruct a highway known as an unadopted road. That is a huge sum of money, and I will have something to say about the £4 million a little later.

Sir R. Boothby: I suppose the hon. Gentleman realises that these sixty roads at Brecon, being 50 miles long, represent 3,000 miles. That is the total mileage given by the Minister of roads to be dealt with. It does not look as if the

hon. Gentleman is going to have much of a time in Breconshire.

Mr. Watkins: Knowing what the hon. Gentleman does on television, I hope he will make that point when he comes to it later. It is very important.
I must congratulate the Government on the proposal to provide access roads for forestry. No mention of such roads was made in the White Paper. I hope that the county councils will not now lose the grants which the Forestry Commission has been giving for access roads. I also hope that such grants will not diminish under this proposal.
I welcome the proposed grants for unclassified roads. Radnorshire has adopted a number of roads in recent years, but, owing to the low rateable value, they cannot undertake any work. Only last Thursday I received six replies to six letters which I sent to the county surveyor in one week. Not a week passes that I do not have to send letters to the county surveyors of both counties in connection with this problem. Therefore, I welcome what has been done.
We are disappointed about grants. I speak not on behalf of the party, but personally. The only thing that we could have done about unadopted roads would have been to give 100 per cent. grant. I know that we shall not be able to get that, but I suggest that, if the highway authority is to adopt and maintain these roads after construction, the local authority should be given a grant towards the cost of maintaining them in the future. If that is not done, local authorities will be able to give no help at all in the matter of expenditure on unadopted roads.
I know that the highway authority will, in future, look after the adopted roads. That is a very good thing, but I would point out that in the matter of contributions new liabilities will arise in the future in connection with hill farmers. If they want an unadopted road which goes to three or four farms they are expected to make voluntary contributions. The local authority, when considering the scheme, will look to those people who have the biggest pockets, and who are prepared to pay the highest contributions, rather than to the need for the road for food production.
It is very important that this should not happen. I should like an assurance from the Minister that an unadopted road which is used for agriculture and food production will receive priority because of that, and not on the question of contributions. I want to make my personal attitude about this perfectly plain, because there is enough capital expenditure available to make up these unadopted roads and to provide for their maintenance afterwards in order to get food for the nation.
There will be agreements about this scheme, but we have not heard a word about the method of these agreements. If there are to be voluntary contributions there must be a scheme. What is to be the priority of the scheme? Is it to be decided by the majority of the owners concerned with a particular road project? If it is to be a majority of the owners, is the majority to be by number, or will it be decided on acreage or on the value of the land? That is important. It is important to know whether one small hill farmer, with a long stretch of road will be called upon to pay the balance after the payment of the grant.
It is also most important to have more information about this scheme, because there may be five or six owners on an unadopted road. One of them may not be willing to come into the scheme and to "play ball." What, then, happens to the scheme? Will an order be imposed on these farmers saying that they must come in? We are entitled to have this information. It is on the information given on the Second Reading of this Bill today that farmers will give their blessing or otherwise to the scheme. Hon. Members opposite know that during the war, when several owners wanted to take over common land, if one owner was not prepared to join in the scheme the land was not taken over. We cannot afford to have that situation arise in the case of unadopted roads. I hope that a statement will be made about this matter.
I now turn to other Clauses. Clause 1 (6) was not in the first Bill. It appears to mean that certain owners of large estates, where there are enclosures of common land, and owners of land granted by the Crown and, maybe, the Forestry Commission, which has purchased estates, will be relieved of contributions towards the unadopted road scheme. Is that right?
That is placing liabilities on the small men and allowing the large estate owner to escape scot-free without paying any contributions. That is how I interpret this subsection, and I think that is wrong. I hope that an explanation will be given as to why this has come about. Who has put pressure on the Minister to include this in the Bill? I have my suspicions, but I am fair-minded, and I will not give them at present.

Mr. J. T. Price: I am glad that my hon. Friend has developed a point which I tried to make shortly in an interjection. Does not he agree that if this policy is pursued it means, on the positive answer given to my question by the Minister, that this may tremendously increase the value to the private owner of a particular site as a result of public money being paid out for this purpose?

Mr. Watkins: Yes I can understand that, but I want to increase the value of the farming community in order to get food production.
On Clause 4, and the £4 million which is to be granted in ten years, I believe that it is totally inadequate. The Radnorshire County Council surveyor estimates that the county will get about £20,000 a year as a result of this Bill. Taking his figures, that means that Wales will receive £2½ million out of £4 million. What do the other parts of the country get? Is there sufficient money available for Scotland and other parts of England?
I hope that these suggestions will commend themselves to the Minister. I know that he cannot do anything about them himself, but he can pass them on to the Minister of Transport. There is one way in which we can get greater value from this £4 million. That is by upgrading the mileage of unclassified roads to Class III. I think that would commend itself to every hon. Member who represents a rural division in this House.
In 1946–47 Class III roads were introduced and a 50 per cent. grant was given in respect of them. Over 5,700 miles of unclassified roads were upgraded to Class III in Wales. Since 1946–47, only about 40 miles have been upgraded. I have been constantly pressing in this House for the upgrading of these roads. There are now 8,419 miles of unclassified roads in the whole of Wales. The majority of these are in the livestock rearing areas.
I understand that the reason given by the Ministry of Transport why it cannot upgrade these roads is that it can only upgrade unclassified roads if there is a through value. Is not that entirely out-of-date? The local users will use these roads for conveying commodities and production from the farms and taking fertilisers to the farms, but that is not a through value at all. I suggest that that is entirely wrong. If a Loch Ness monster were to transfer to an isolated place in Wales and remain there, and people travelled to see it by an unclassified road, the road could be upgraded on the present through-traffic value formula, but local usage is not counted. This is a wrong formula and it ought to be changed. I hope that the Minister will look at these suggestions. If he allocates grants towards schemes, the grants should be uniform in character and not vary as between county and county and the localities in a county.
I should like to say a word or two about Clause 5. I welcome the reference to cattle grids. If reference had not been made to them in the Bill, some of us intended to move an Amendment in Committee on the first Bill, but the Minister has been saved from that debate. The interpretation refers to the
…widening of the road, the cutting off of corners of the road,…
Surely, in the case of unclassified roads, it ought to go further than that. Does it mean that resurfacing, channelling and draining is not included because it is very expensive? I hope it does not mean that. I hope that the Minister will include those things in the interpretation of the word "improvement." I do not know why subsection 5 (3) has been introduced, and I should like to know exactly what it means.
We welcome the Bill, and we shall give it every possible support in its further stages. We shall also take every opportunity of improving it. I would ask the Minister to consider whether it would not be a good thing to follow this Bill by other Bills of a similar character, which would deal with the question of access roads in country districts. We should not look at the Bill merely through the spectacles of the farming community. Other people reside in the rural areas, where the roads are not only an economic necessity but a social requirement for the transport of school children and for

people taking part in religious and other activities. Above all, Bills of this nature —administered by local authorities and assisted by the central Government—should contribute towards the solution of the problem of the repopulation of rural areas. I welcome this opportunity of supporting the Bill on behalf of hon. Members on this side of the House.

4.31 p.m.

Commander J. W. Maitland: The House will have listened with very great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins). His constituency is in a part of Wales which I have very great pleasure in knowing, and I agree that the problems and difficulties to which he has referred are very real. There was one part of his speech which I did not understand. At one stage he appeared to claim —possibly rightly—that at least half the money available should be allocated to his part of Wales, but at another stage he appeared to suggest that it would be much better if the money were distributed equally all over the country. The two statements somehow did not seem to fit together.
I want to go from the hills to the lowlands. The last occasion when the House discussed the question of agricultural roads was during the passage of the first and second Agriculture (Miscellaneous War Provisions) Bills, at the beginning of the war. The first Bill did not deal specifically with hill roads but with fen roads, and its object was to enable agricultural production to be increased. It was pointed out—and the argument is just as good today as it was then—that with heavier crops of potatoes, beet and such foodstuffs, access roads must be made adequate, or there would be a great loss of production. Although Wales may have first priority it should not be considered that the principle of the Bill is one which cannot be extended to many other parts of the country.
I would ask the Minister how he is to ensure that local authorities come forward with their schemes. I do not think that there will be an ugly rush to come forward with schemes of this sort. I have made inquiries of my own local authorities and they said, in effect, "Of course, we should like help of this sort —we have many farm roads which need just this sort of assistance—but we simply


cannot afford the money which we should have to spend if we accepted the Government's grants; nor have we the men or the time to deal with the problem of these roads. We should like to accept this assistance very much, but we simply cannot afford to do so." That seems to be a very true criticism. Quite apart from their own contributions, the maintenance of these roads will hit local authorities very heavily. If the Bill does nothing else, it draws attention to the great importance of using national funds to improve our roads without involving too heavily local government funds.
I want to impress upon the Government the importance of extending steadily these first steps towards the improvement of agricultural roads. At the beginning of my speech I said that these matters were last considered during the war. I give this awful warning to my right hon. Friend: one month after the first Agriculture (Miscellaneous War Provisions) Bill was introduced in respect of the improvement of fen roads, another Bill was introduced to extend the grants for the improvement of additional agricultural roads. I hope that that sort of thing will happen in this case. These are first steps, and we welcome them as we always welcome first steps. One is always kind to toddlers—but if my right hon. Friend wants to win the approbation of the agricultural community he will not toddle; he will break into a smart double.

4.36 p.m.

Mr. Roderic Bowen: I welcome the Bill. I was pleased to hear the Minister refer to the fact that it had a distinctly Welsh pedigree. Unfortunately, it has had rather a long period of gestation, during which it has been fathered upon both England and Scotland. I should not complain about that if it were not for the fact that the provision for its maintenance has not been increased. I understood that when the Bill was originally conceived the Ministry had in mind £4 million in relation to Wales alone. That sum, apparently, has now to be shared between Wales and certain areas in England and Scotland. If the Bill is to make a really practical contribution towards solving the difficulties arising in connection with rural roads, its financial provisions must be implemented with a sense of realism.
The Minister has conceded the existence of a real problem in regard to these access roads. It is not a purely agricultural problem; it has a social aspect. Many holdings in my area are likely to become empty unless something is done to provide reasonable means of access there. Hon. Members representing the rural counties of Wales are continually receiving complaints that merchants are refusing to deliver fertilisers, coal and similar commodities to these holdings because of the condition of the roads. Parents continually complain that it is cruel to send their children to school over some of the present roads in the upland areas. This situation presents our local authorities with a great headache.
There can be no doubt of the dire necessity of doing something in this direction. There can also be no doubt of the difficulties in which local authorities find themselves in facing their responsibilities for the maintenance of roadways in these areas. I want to give one or two figures to emphasise the difficulty which is being experienced by counties in rural Wales. The cost per head in respect of road maintenance in the rural counties of Wales is between £6 and £7. In England as a whole it is £1 13s. 9d. That illustrates the gravity of the problem in these rural areas as compared to the rest of the country. In regard to unclassified roads, I will take as an example my own county. We have 500 miles, 375 miles of which require to be brought up to a reasonable standard. That work would cost more than £1 million. After making all allowances for rate equalisation grant and other grants that might be obtained, this would involve a rise of 8s. 4d. in the £ in the rates.
The Bill envisages some of these roads being brought up to standard, and places rate burdens on the local authorities in regard to roads which are taken over. The figures indicate that unless the grants available in connection with these roads in livestock rearing areas are very substantial the Bill will be a dead letter. The same is true of Montgomeryshire and Radnorshire.
The Minister referred to the Report of the Rural Development Panel. In its survey of Montgomeryshire, it found 264 miles of unclassified roads, only 26 miles of which were anything like up to the standard. In Radnorshire, there were


only 25 miles up to standard out of 252 miles of unclassified roads. If the Minister expects these local authorities to do anything under the Bill he will have to extend to them a grant of at least 75 per cent. for unclassified roads and for unadopted roads something amounting virtually to 100 per cent. Unless these grants are available to the local authorities, I fear that the local authorities will find themselves unable to take advantage of the provisions of the Bill.
I will make one or two comments on the details of the Bill. I am glad that the initiative is to come from the local authorities who, after all, know local conditions, the roads and the areas where the need is greatest. The Explanatory Memorandum suggests that the scheme will be spread over ten years, but if the local authorities take up the Bill the £4 million will be absorbed not in ten years but in a year or two. If the Bill is to be a good one, all the money set aside for its operation will be absorbed in a very short time indeed.
I agree with the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins) about the position that may arise under the Bill if we call upon farmers to contribute in respect of one adoption and not in respect of another. I do not quite understand whether the question of contribution is to be gone into before the grant from the Government is determined, or not. I do not know the order of events from the financial aspect of the scheme.
I welcome the fact that these contributions are to be voluntary. They will depend upon amicable arrangements between the local authorities and the farmers. I anticipate that when we work out schemes it will be found that it would have been far better if the contributory element had been eliminated altogether. What will be gained by getting contributions will I be outbalanced by the administrative trouble and inconvenience, and the danger of dissatisfaction and of a sense of unfairness, as between one scheme and another. I invite the Minister to change the Bill in this respect.
If the Bill is to operate effectively, I hope the Minister will think in terms of most generous grants, particularly for the Welsh counties. Otherwise, the Bill will be a complete failure. If the machinery of the Bill is operated to anything like the extent it should be, £4 million will be wholly inadequate to meet the situation.
Bearing in mind these limitations, I welcome the Bill and sincerely hope that the Ministry will look upon schemes submitted to it with sufficient benevolence to make it possible for local authorities to do something really worth while towards solving our difficulties in the field of road communications in our upland areas.

4.48 p.m.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: The Bill raises a very important principle regarding public money for improving private property, which we shall have to face increasingly. Although we are now dealing with a very limited sphere indeed in respect of farming roads, yet over the country as a whole there must be tens of thousands of farm roads getting into a deplorable state because of the mechanisation of agriculture. This is not the occasion for further comment, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins) has said, we get numerous letters about the condition of these roads.
Although I represent a semi-industrial area I frequently get letters from farmers and others who are worried about the unadopted and the unclassified roads. In my constituency, we have the further problem of scores of miles of roads which served the tin and copper mines in the past, but are now in a dreadful state because they have never been adopted. In my area we were unable to carry out a road improvement quite close to the school at Cusgarne simply because the money was not available for the purpose of doing it.
What worries me about the Bill and about the debate is that the Minister has been very hazy about the cost per mile of the roads that should be improved. I did not take down the figure, but if my memory is right he mentioned £2,000 to £3,000 per mile. If we take the figure £2,500 per mile, then, to judge by a county survey for Brecon, the utmost we could hope to get done for £1 million would be 40 miles. That would be the total cost.
Even if the Ministry gives a grant of 50 per cent., all we should get would be 80 miles. As the total expenditure envisaged by the Bill is only £4 million, all we can expect to get done in ten years under the Bill is 320 miles of roads. The Minister himself mentioned that in these hill farming areas there are thousands of miles of roads involved, and it


seems to me that, although the Minister is making a good start, he will have to improve on it very soon.

4.50 p.m.

Sir Robert Boothby: This will be a speech of record-making brevity, because there are only two points I want to make.
I must say to begin with, however, that I have seen some "rum" Bills introduced in this House, but this Bill seems to me to be one of the "rummiest." I came to the conclusion when I read it first of all that the Minister must himself have concluded that this House of Commons will now swallow anything; and I must say that I think he is entirely justified in reaching that conclusion, for so it will, by the gulp, as we have heard this afternoon. I confess that, although I think the gulp on this occasion is very much too small, I have hopes of it being enlarged at a later stage; and I have therefore no hesitation in putting it down.
The Minister is asking for a rather tall order from the House of Commons. He started off by saying that this Bill was devised primarily for Wales. I find that mildly irritating. In fact, the Minister made it pretty clear that if the Bill had not been designed for Wales it would not have been introduced at all. Then it appears to have dawned upon him that there would be a tremendous hullabaloo from England and Scotland if the Bill applied only to Wales; and here again the Minister was perfectly right.

Mr. Raymond Gower: Does my hon. Friend really resent one Bill which is primarily intended for Wales after such a shoal of Bills over many years which were primarily intended for Scotland?

Sir R. Boothby: That is quite an unworthy interruption, and I should not dream of attempting to answer it. If this Bill had been introduced and confined to Wales, my hon. Friend would have heard about it from the Scots, and in no uncertain voice. It does now apply to Scotland; but it is a tall order which the Minister is asking for.
We do not yet know what these areas are. We do not know how they are to be defined. How high are the hills to be, and what precisely does "a livestock-rearing area" mean? If there are any

livestock about they are apt, if left alone, to have calves from time to time, and in that case it seems to me that most agricultural land in due course becomes a livestock-rearing area. There is no attempt to define, as such, an area which is to qualify for the grant.
Nor do we know how many miles of roads are involved. The figure of 3,000 miles was vaguely mentioned by the Minister, though I could not make out that it was for any particular reason; and so hon. Members on both sides of the House have been making pot-shots at the number of miles of unclassified and unadopted roads that may be dealt with under the Bill. Nobody has produced any very good reason for any particular figure—all the figures are widely different from each other—and we have had no assistance from the Government in reaching an estimate.
We do not know what the percentage grant will be. I suggested that between 30 per cent. and 90 per cent. was a reasonably wide range, but the Minister rather objected to it. When he asked me why I suggested 30 per cent. to 90 per cent., I said that I thought of it only because it seemed a wide enough range. Since then, we have had 100 per cent. suggested by hon. Members opposite for unadopted roads, and the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen), who spoke for the Liberal Party, suggested 75 per cent. for unclassified roads. I do not know if that is right, but at any rate it is a figure, which is more than we got from the Minister.
Finally, we do not know what principle, if any, will guide the Minister in coming to his decisions. All we do know is that £4 million is to be made available for the next 10 years; but we have not a clue on what basis this figure has been reached—not the foggiest idea. There is one thing I can say with great conviction. It is not going to be nearly enough; and 1 quite agree with the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) that, if the Bill is to succeed, the Minister will have to come back and ask for a good deal more money than he is asking for today.
In conclusion, I want to say that if any constituency is a livestock-rearing area my constituency is. It rears more livestock per acre than any other section of


the globe at the present time; and, therefore, whatever definition is laid down of that term, it must come into this Bill. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Spence) will agree with me that we have a very nice line in unclassified roads in Aberdeenshire—several thousand miles of them—which ought to be put in good condition; and the present condition of these roads affects greatly the efficiency of farming in this area, where farming is otherwise very efficient.
We could do much more. We should do much better and put our unadopted and unclassified roads in rural areas into good order. It is one of the most serious problems affecting the north-east of Scotland at present; and, to strike a serious note as I sit down, that is really why I have been a little depressed by the tone of the debate this afternoon. This is not really a small thing; it is a burning agricultural problem.
I am sure that the condition of out roads is having a bad effect on farming efficiency. We should not have a fiddling little Measure which is inadequate to deal with the problem. We need a comprehensive Measure for dealing with unclassified roads in the rural areas throughout the country on an adequate scale, and with adequate funds; and I am certain that we shall have to direct our attention to this problem before very long.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. Sidney Dye: I am bound to say that I think the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir R. Boothby) has introduced some reality into this debate. I listened carefully to the Minister, and the further he went in explaining this little Bill the more depressing he became. The right hon. Gentleman, for the benefit of his health, spent some time in East Anglia in the early part of this year, and I thought then that he would have taken some notice of the condition of the unclassified and farm roads, but he seemed to have his eyes fixed principally on political matters.
If a policy for agriculture is to be a success, quite clearly it must come down to the hard facts. I do not think the Minister really meant it when he said that the whole House would welcome the Bill. Why, indeed, should it? There is nothing

in the Bill for the whole House to welcome. There is something to give a little pleasure to hon. Members from Wales, but otherwise the Bill is of such small stature that it does not look as if it will make a contribution, or at least a worth while contribution, to the well-being of agriculture. If it does, the local authorities or the local owners or other people interested in these roads will themselves have to find a pretty substantial contribution.
I should have thought that it would have been possible right from the start for the Minister to be able to say on what kind of road he would give a certain percentage grant. It seems to me that the local authorities are left in the dark. Will it be worth while for them to go to the expense of initiating schemes and sending them up to the Minister, not knowing whether they will be approved or whether the amount of the grant will be sufficient to make it worth their while to do the job? I think we should have had a great deal more light on that subject.
The purpose of the Bill is to assist what are described as livestock-rearing areas. It is about time that somebody's attention was drawn to them. I took a note of the figures issued by the Ministry last month showing the position of our livestock at 31st March, 1955. What do we find? We find that the number of cows and heifers in calf was down by 28,000; male cattle two years old and over by 60,000; heifers two years old but not in calf by 13,000, and heifer calves under a year old by 36,000.
As compared with March last year, the female cattle from which we breed our stock had decreased by 77,000. Something has happened to agriculture in the last few years. It had been on the upgrade, but something has happened to bring down the numbers of those vital breeding animals. Without them we cannot have future supplies, and a blow has therefore been struck at British agriculture whereby our potential meat production must decrease during the next year or two.
Not only have we this tremendous decrease in the number of cattle, but just look at the sheep: because they are being killed at much earlier ages, there is a reduction of 158,000. That means less provision for our future sheep production. With pigs, the figures are devastating.
In March, 1955, as compared with March, 1954, there were 51,000 fewer gilts. That could mean as many as 700,000 fewer pigs produced in the next 12 months.
The assistance of £4 million over 10 years given to livestock-rearing areas makes this a miserable Measure indeed, and one not likely to encourage the farmers and the farming community to bend their backs to the task of producing more food at home so as to save imports at a time when we are in a very critical position. It therefore seems to me that this Bill is most inadequate.
I was very grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland) for reminding the House that when a Bill was brought in during the war to provide for the construction of roads through the fens it had to be enlarged in a very short time. I was glad that he mentioned that, because we in Norfolk are now concerned as to why the Government have not included in this Bill provision for the maintenance of those roads, as I understand was at one time their intention.
What is the position? A vast amount of money was spent 10 or 15 years ago on constructing concrete roads through the fens. These roads are now deteriorating so rapidly that they will become unusable, but there is no road authority charged with their repair and maintenance. I believe that some of them come under the drainage authorities. In fact, during this week I had a letter from the clerk to the Hilgay Parish Council—that is a place in the fen area—asking me to bring to the Government's notice as a matter of urgency the fact that roads which were constructed during the war and for which no local authority is at present responsible are deteriorating so rapidly that they will, unless something is done, become useless for their purpose.
The National Farmers' Union in Norfolk was expecting the Government to do something with regard not merely to these roads in the fen district but to others leading to outlying farms—and there are some stock-rearing areas even in a county like Norfolk. I think that we rear as many stock in Norfolk as they do in Aberdeenshire—probably more—and I am certain that they compare in quality also.

Sir R. Boothby: No.

Mr. Dye: Norfolk is the one county in the British Isles where the stock-carrying capacity has gone up during the years. In spite of this big drop in other parts of the country, Norfolk still has an increase in its livestock and is prepared to continue to increase it. If we are to have the stock we must rear more in the county because of the fall elsewhere. But if we are to make the fullest use of our potential resources, and if we are to cope with increased mechanisation, someone at some time must tackle the problem of our farm roads and fen roads.
The job is too big for the county. The cost would be far too great, because we have a very big mileage to deal with. If we are to meet the needs of hardworking farmers in out-of-the-way places who are rearing stock in disadvantageous conditions; and if we can do anything to help them by improving their roads, we ought to do it. It ought not to be postponed. The sum of £4 million is not enough. If it was increased to £40 million and spent in less than 10 years, we could begin to do something for the transport of crops and stock from the farms and of fertilisers and other essential things to the farms.
I cannot welcome the Bill. I feel that the Minister did not learn much from his visits in Norfolk in May, but I hope that he will come back again very quickly and try to meet our road problem as well as trying to do something for the roads in Wales.

5.9 p.m.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: I welcome the Bill as a small step in one direction, but I should like to see the Minister move in other directions also. The definition relates mainly to high ground, but I should be glad to see it extended to some of the more level parts of the kingdom. I, too, speak for parts of Norfolk and East Anglia where it is difficult to make roads. Our countryside may be flat, but we have a lot of soft land and a prevailing shortage of road-making materials. It is therefore correspondingly expensive to put roads in order —it is difficult to get the hard bottom that is needed.
I was interested to note that the figures put forward by the Minister as the likely cost of reconditioning some of the hill


roads in Wales—£2,000 to £3,000 a mile —agree with the actual cost—or, indeed, are rather less on average—of putting into order some of the fenways which, though treated in the war, have now lapsed into bad condition.
One of the troubles about the system of the fen roads is that wartime legislation empowered internal drainage boards to organise a road-hardening scheme in conjunction with agricultural executive committees. That had to be done in a hurry, and concrete was used. Probably concrete is the most useful material in those circumstances, but when it is laid on soft ground it cracks if it is not reinforced. Because of the shortage of materials in wartime, much of this work could not be reinforced and it has since broken up. Now one is left not so much with the problem of maintenance as of complete reconditioning.
At the moment this task is placed on the shoulders of the local internal drainage boards, which have neither the facilities nor the resources to cope with it. I hope that at a very near date the Minister will look at the problem of roads in the sparsely populated areas of East Anglia. I hope he will see whether the definition of a livestock-rearing area can be widened to include a lot of our grazing marshes, and also whether the principles of this Bill can be extended so as to let in any unadopted highway road for maintenance of which a local authority is prepared to be responsible thereafter.
As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland) pointed out, there is not likely to be an ugly rush to put these roads in order. If in future a local authority thinks that it can produce funds for maintenance, that in itself is a reasonable guarantee that the road in question is worth putting into order with the grant so that it may become adopted.
It is worth noticing that the internal drainage boards have the main task of carrying out drainage work for which they receive very useful grants. The usual figure for reconditioning a dyke is 50 per cent., but the cost of reconditioning a dyke is only about one-third of the cost of reconditioning a fenway.
As hon. Members from all over the Kingdom have pointed out, there are many unclassified and unadopted rural roads which need urgent attention. Those representing rural areas are all familiar with the sight of groups of cottages and houses at the end of an unadopted road which has been a public highway since living memory but which no one has seen fit to repair. As a result of neglect and its use by tractors and so on, the road quickly becomes impassable, particularly in winter, for farmers and workers who live at the end of the road. If hon. Members could see the struggle which people have with perambulators, for example, they would see that such houses must fall out of use.
Land which is worth cultivating and houses which are serviceable for living in will fall into disuse, not because the land is not worth cultivating or the houses are not worth living in, but because people cannot get to and fro. The Minister is on this occasion taking what we might describe as the high road over the mountains, but I hope that very shortly he will be minded to turn to some of the low roads through the valleys and across the fens.

5.16 p.m.

Mr. T. W. Jones: I am particularly interested in this Bill. Some hon. Members sitting around me may recall that on 3rd March last year I was privileged in the Adjournment debate to raise the subject of roads in Merioneth. In replying to that debate, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport rather rapped me on the knuckles for inferring, as he thought, that the Government were not at all interested in the unclassified and unadopted roads of Merioneth. I am pleased to see that the promise made that evening has been implemented in this Bill. Indeed, the Bill goes further than was promised then. Not only does it deal with unadopted roads leading to farms, but also with roads leading to forests, and there are a large number of such roads in my constituency.
Unlike a previous speaker from this side of the House, I find the Bill fairly commendable. It can be made very useful and valuable in a county like Merionethshire. It is true that this is not a perfect Bill. Who would expect perfection from a Conservative Government?
Allowing for that, I am prepared to say that it is perhaps the best Bill of its kind. I am going to deal with one or two of the snags in the Bill and to show its imperfections.
Taking Merioneth as a typical example of a hill farming county, the county council there is helpless to deal with most of the unclassified roads and certainly with the unadopted roads. The product of a 1d. rate in Merioneth is in the region of £500. I hope the Minister will make special note of that, because that is where one of the snags occurs. In some counties, even in North Wales, the product of 1d. rate is in the region of £3,000, but in Merioneth—a purely rural hill farming area—it is in the region of £500. When I remind the House that in the county there are 350 miles of unclassified roads, apart from unadopted roads, the magnitude of the problem there can be readily appreciated.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins). In my opinion, there is only one solution for the unclassified roads, and that is to upgrade them as Class III roads. I can see no other solution to this problem because, however generous the grants may be, for instance under the Bill, the problem of maintenance will remain. When the product of a ld. rate is only £500, it can readily be appreciated that the finance committee of the Merionethshire County Council would have to think twice before it put the provisions of the Bill into operation. It would be compelled to do so because it would have to consider where the money would come from.
I am very sorry that the Minister has imposed a ceiling of a mere £4 million. I say "mere" in view of what has been said during the debate. One mile of road in Merioneth cost £80,000 to construct, and I am sure that the £4 million would easily be expended in the counties of Merionethshire and Caernarvonshire put together. I therefore urge the Minister to try to influence his colleagues in the other Department to do all that is possible to upgrade these unclassified roads in such a rural area as Merionethshire, as I am sure that is the only solution.
May I come for a moment to the question of the unadopted roads, which are no one's responsibility? The Government

are pressing farmers to produce more and more, and nothing would assist hill farmers to increase their production as much as the provision of decent roads leading to their farms. It is a very costly business nowadays to convey such things as fertilisers and machinery to the farm and afterwards to convey the products of the farm to the markets. I repeat: nothing would assist the farmers to produce far more than they produce at the present day than the provision of better and adequate roads leading to and from their farms.
I wonder how many hill farmers can take advantage of the provisions of Clause 3, which reads:
Where the council of any county, county borough or county district in England or Wales, or the council of any county in Scotland, propose to improve an unclassified road or unadopted road in their area, and the improvement is one to which this Act applies, the council may enter into an agreement under this section with any person willing to contribute to the improvement.
That sounds very reasonable and fair but is it practical for hill farming? In a county like Merioneth, one finds that not even some of the large farms on the hills are as prosperous as farms in the Lowlands. They are family farms, difficult of cultivation, with not much surplus of profit.
I am convinced that the vast majority of the farmers in my constituency have not the capital to spend on these unadopted roads. It would therefore be adding insult to injury to tell them, "We should like you to have better roads and we will assist you on condition that you assist yourselves." They are not in a position to assist themselves, and such a situation would be most tantalising. The intentions of the Bill may be commendable and made with every sincerity, but unless they are practical they are of no avail.
It is pleasing to note that there are provisions in the Bill to deal with forestry. The workers in the forests today are greatly hampered by the terrible conditions of some of the roads leading to the forests, and I am glad that through the provisions of the Bill there are hopes that these roads will be greatly improved.
I shall carefully watch the Bill passing through Committee. It is a fairly good Bill but it is capable of much improvement, and I hope that in his reply the


Minister will say that he has specially noted all he has heard from both sides of the House so that at the close of the debate there will be hopes of getting a far better Bill than that which has been presented.

5.26 p.m.

Mr. David Renton: The hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. T. W. Jones) pointed out what a tremendous task is involved in making even modest improvements on hill roads, and perhaps I could take that as my cue for the few remarks which I shall make.
When we are voting money to be spent on an agricultural Estimate, I suggest that the best test as to whether we are wisely voting is whether or not we shall get an increase in production from the money which is to be spent. The amount of increased production which can be derived from spending hundreds of thousands of pounds upon long stretches of Highland roads is very doubtful indeed. One could imagine that one would spend an awful lot of money and get perhaps a bit more dairy farming done at some remote place and have the milk more easily carried to and fro.
On the other hand, if the question of fen droves were taken in hand, we should get an immense increase in fertility in the fens, an increase in livestock production there and a very much better return on the money. As there is such a limited amount to be spent, I am very sorry that none of it is apparently to be spent in my constituency or in any part of the fenland areas.
This fenland problem is twofold. First, we have the problem of the droves, the unadopted roads, which have to be seen in winter to be believed. The reason for which they are in such a bad condition is partly that many of them lie at sea level or very near to it and partly the very nature of the soil, which makes road building more difficult. A further problem which I am afraid arises far too often is that a large number of small owners or small tenants whose land adjoins the droves have over the years found it very difficult to co-operate in providing the money. I dare say that if there were the inducement of a Government grant they would get together much more readily. The money would be well spent there.
I heard of a drove the other day which is quite impassable in winter for any kind of traffic and sometimes difficult even on foot. It was called "Labour-in-Vain Drove." Very many of these droves would be rightly so described.
Another problem is that of the droves which were made up during the war into concrete roads. Where they have been adopted by the county council, as in one of the fenland counties, it seems to me that no problem arises, but in those counties where the county councils have not adopted the concrete roads, they have become a wasting asset. They are deteriorating very quickly indeed, and it seems ridiculous that for the expenditure of a comparatively small amount—in fact, it is a trifling sum—we should lose the total value of these concrete roads. I hope that my right hon. Friend will state the Government policy on these roads. I am told that if they were reclassified so that the county councils received a 75 per cent. maintenance grant, which, although it sounds a large percentage, would not be a large annual amount, there would be no difficulty in the councils maintaining those roads in future.
It seems to me that if we want higher production and the best use made of our best land—and the fenlands are undoubtedly our best land—we must do something some day about the fenland droves. It seems a great pity that while we are legislating on this subject we are doing nothing at all to solve this problem. I hope that the Government will have second thoughts before long.

5.31 p.m.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I rise mainly to refute the suggestion made by the hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Renton), which was, if I understood the hon. Gentleman aright, that the criterion in these matters should be how much production we can get out of these areas when we spend this money.

Mr. Renton: How much increased production.

Mr. Roberts: If the hon. and learned Gentleman had listened to his own Minister, he would have heard that this little Bill was the result of urgent representations from Wales where, for generations, people have been concerned not only about the


quality of our agriculture and our uplands but about what I can only describe as the gradual liquidation of a national community.
This question of handing out public money to increase production here or there is not the only criterion that an assembly of this character should consider. In so far as this Bill is to be welcomed, it is a small attempt to help a section of the population of this island which, for many years, has been fighting hard economically and culturally to maintain its integrity and its existence. I should have thought that in every quarter of the House there would be acclamation for any attempt to rescue these people from the poverty and the hopelessness which so often has overtaken them.
I wish I could welcome the Bill more warmly, but its main purpose is out of all relation to the character of the problem with which we are faced. It comes to this, that until we have reformed the whole basis of local government finance, particularly in Wales, this kind of Bill will not do the job we wish it to do. We have heard from more than one Member of the basic inability of the local authorities to find even a small proportion of the costs of these schemes. I am afraid I must agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland) that even this small Bill may well become a dead letter in the rural counties of Wales unless the grants in each case approach practically 100 per cent. That is not the fault of the local authorities. It is the flaw in our local government system of finance, and until we do something about that, we shall have these Bills attempting to patch up here and there glaring faults in our economy and in our local amenities, and we shall continue to feel frustration and inadequacy in the face of this large problem.
I fear that the administration of this Bill is going to prove difficult, and I hope that between now and the Committee stage the Minister will consider very carefully how the £4 million is to be distributed over the next 10 years. This Bill exacerbates the latent dichotomy of interest between the ratepayer and the farmer, and I can envisage councils with very small financial resources practically forcing the farming community to enter

into arrangements with them so that the burden on the rates will thereby be lessened.
Again I do not blame the authorities. Between the two inhibitions—the poverty of the local authorities and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Merioneth (Mr. T. W. Jones) mentioned, the comparative poverty of a great many of the farmers which the Bill is supposed to help—this Bill may well be a dead letter. I hope it will not be. But there surely must be some way whereby we can ensure that the comparatively small boon contained in this Bill is taken up by the people for whom the Bill was designed.
I wish the Bill well. It could, I think, help Wales a little where our national difficulty is felt most at the moment. I wish more money were provided by the Bill, and, above all, I wish the money were being provided under a different system from this pestiferous grant system involving first the central authority and then the local authority, and the evaluation of schemes in such a way that there is bound to be complaint and ill-feeling between applicant and applicant.
We on these benches will do our best in Committee to help this Bill through and to strengthen it, and I know from experience of the Minister and his assistants that he also will be most ready to do his best to improve the Bill.

5.38 p.m.

Mr. H. R. Spence: It must be quite clear to the Minister, having listened to the speeches so far, that the whole House supports the principle of this Bill. The criticism of the Bill, too, has been almost unanimous, namely, that the amount proposed for road improvement is too small.
It seems to me that before the conclusion of the debate we should have from the Minister more information about the method of allocation which is to be employed. I understood the Minister to say that he envisaged 50 per cent. of the grants being allocated to the Principality. It seems, therefore, that, in saying that, the Minister must have in mind some method of allocation. To decide to allocate about £2 million for the improvement of roads in Wales leaves only £2 million for the whole of the rest of Great Britain, which is far too small a sum.

Mr. Gower: Is my hon. Friend not aware that the original purpose was to use this money to deal with a particular problem peculiar to the economy of Wales? It is only incidental that other parts of the United Kingdom are to receive some part of that sum.

Mr. Spence: The Minister will perhaps reply to that when he winds up the debate.

Mr. G. Roberts: Would the hon. Member also be fair enough to recognise that there has been Bill after Bill which has attended to the special needs of Scotland, and especially the Highlands—for instance, the 1897 Bill?

Mr. Spence: It would be out of order for me to refer to all the Scottish Bills which have been passed. Here, we are dealing with these particular roads in the rural areas and the problem of the agricultural community. It seems to me that Scotland will come off very poorly if half the grants are to be given in advance to Wales. It would be of great benefit to all of us if the Minister would indicate the basis on which allocation is to be made.
Are all country authorities throughout the country to submit their plans, and will the money be allocated upon a mileage proportion? Is it a fact that the larger the mileage for which a county applies, the larger will be the grant to that county; or will it be on a basis of so much per county irrespective of their proposals? If we could have more details of this kind, they would help greatly in the preparation of plans, for we must have more idea of how the allocations are to be made.
A great deal has been said during the debate about the need to improve and increase agricultural production and the purely physical side has been emphasised strongly. Even more important is the human angle and the social side of this development, for it is, above all, important to stop the drift from the land by improving the conditions on the land. It is this aspect that will have the greatest long-term benefit for the industry.
My right hon. Friend can be assured of our support. We hope that between now and the Committee stage he will consider his methods of allocation and whether it is possible to be more precise

about the nature and amount of the payments that are to be made. Could he give a figure for unclassified roads and a figure for non-adopted roads? These details would be helpful to local authorities and I hope that my right hon. Friend may see his way to giving them before the Committee stage.
We also hope—I am sure the whole—House hopes—that this Bill is merely an introduction to the work of improving these roads and that we may not regard it with finality, so that as the requests for help come in, as they will do, from all over the country, the Government may perhaps see their way to make the grants bigger and progressive as the years go by.

5.43 p.m.

Mr. David Grenfell: I think I can say a few words to allay some of the doubts in the minds of hon. Members who do not belong to Wales and who cannot possibly be expected to understand the nature of our particular problems. I am very glad that the Bill attempts to ease certain onerous conditions affecting hill farming and agricultural life in the hill districts in particular. We all know that Wales is a highly elevated country, topographically and in every other way. There are problems that are not due to any fault of commission or omission on the part of the population.
I know my Wales very well. I know Scotland very well superficially. I have a great affection for Scotland and the Scots folk, and there is no occasion in this House for bringing up any sense of rivalry between the people of any parts of these kingdoms. We are a great people and I am very proud of my association with the countryside as well as with the industrial life.
I was a coal miner; that is my trade. I know that trade very well indeed. I have given the best years of my life to coal mining. I would never get such years again. I have been very happy in this House during my 33 years of service here, but I think that my best time was spent when I was young in the mines and I came to know some of the best people in the world. What we must always remember in this House when anyone refers to England, Scotland, Wales or Ireland, is that the people in our countries are among the best people in the world.
We should be careful at all times not to miss a single opportunity of improving the industrial conditions and life in the countryside. The problem which has hurt me perhaps more than anything else in recent years is the problem of the deserted countryside. The countryside is being deserted even now in Scotland. The countryside is deserted even now in Wales, and there are people whose sole ambition and purpose in life is, by some means or other, to settle in the cities or, perhaps, abroad. There is no hope or prospect for a contented full life for people in their own country. That is the state in the rural districts in Wales at the present time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins)—my neighbour—has to represent two counties. He is not a very big man physically, but he has to divide himself in two to give part of his time to Breconshire, a very extensive county, and part to the still more extensive, but less populated, area of Radnorshire. In Glamorgan, where I live, we have 16 Members of Parliament. We have smaller and more compact constituencies and a more urbanised life generally. We have far more physical comforts, far more conveniences and a higher standard of education. All these things are being evolved through the Bill which has been brought before the House today, and I hope that this House will not neglect the opportunity of doing what is vitally necessary in the interests of parts of Wales, parts of Scotland and also rather extensive areas in England, too.
Let the English people speak for England with their greater familiarity with their country than I have, but I have seen very much of England. For many years I was a member of the Forestry Commission. Does anybody think that I took that up to gain credit and fame as a good forester? Oh, no. I knew that the job had to be done in all parts of the kingdom, in England as well as in the other countries. Very great neglect had led to the deforestation of tremendous areas of land.
When anybody grudges the spending of money in rural areas, let it be remembered that we are now spending £1 million a year on afforestation. That

money is not spent so much in places like Hertfordshire, Middlesex and the southern counties, but is spent generally in the kind of areas to which we are referring today. I know almost every forest in Scotland. I have walked through nearly all of them. This work was started by Philip Snowden, a wicked old Socialist, as he was called, but a great man who had the assistance of great Scotsmen who were forest experts. In 1929, we started a plan of afforestation, with which I have been associated directly and actively for twenty-five years and to which I still attach myself from time to time. I never miss a year without making a trip to the forests. There are 87 of them in Wales. People have no idea of what this has meant. These forests are beautiful to look at and a joy to behold, even to people from any part of Europe. They are better than the rich forests in Europe. Britain grows better and more timber than any country I know, and I have seen a few of them.
That public expenditure has benefited the rural areas. The amount of money that is being spent now is about £1 million a year and it is spent mainly in this same kind of area. What we from Wales are now saying is that there is no need to have special forests or agricultural segregation. I warn the House not to neglect too long the problem of the deserted village. Goldsmith has given us poetic reference to this kind of emigration from the countryside. If the people leave the hills of Scotland and the hills of Wales, as other people left the mineral areas of Cornwall, they will never go back again, and those parts will be less agreeable for the rest to live in, and Britain will be the poorer. The level of cultivation is coming down very rapidly, coming down to 800 and 600 feet, and nowhere is that more evident than in Wales.
I want the Minister to be given carte blanche by this House to do what he can. Let him not squander money, but let him place sufficient money at the service of agriculture to stop the further emigration of people from the agricultural areas. Let him renew the conditions of life in those areas, the transport, the social amenities—and the chance for the parents in rural areas to send their children to school, for they cannot go to school these


days in some places because of the neglect of the roads.
Here is an opportunity for the House and the Minister to do something for the benefit of the countryside. Let each one of us picture in his mind what he ought to do today, and imagine how, at some future time, he will feel if he were today to withhold, or to try to withhold, a grant for this purpose today, a grant of money to stop the emigration from the countryside, to stop villages being deserted as they were a century ago. Let us put a stop to this desertion of the countryside. Let us by all means ensure that the men in the rural areas are given, by financial provision out of which new roads, new cottages, new schools can be built there, a chance to live well again in their own country. And by that word "country" I do not mean Wales only. Perhaps I should say, to live well in their own countries, these countries of ours, which are the best in the world, with the best countrysides. Let us not neglect them. If we do, we do so at our peril.

5.53 p.m.

Major H. Legge-Bourke: In following the Father of the House, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) who, as usual, has impressed us with his sincerity and his love of his own country, I hope he will not think that because I live in the Fens I feel any resentment at this Bill being primarily of benefit to Wales. If any right hon. or hon. Gentleman thinks that any of us who speak for areas outside of Wales have any resentment against the Bill on that account, or against Wales, he is quite wrong. We are sympathetic to the Bill.
Perhaps the provisions of the Bill will play in Wales a part not altogether dissimilar from that which the hydro-electric scheme in Scotland is playing for that country. There is a social purpose to be served by this Bill as well as an agricultural one. I do not think I would follow my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Renton) the whole way in saying that the only criterion by which to judge anything done in the countryside is the measure of a consequent increase of production. Of course, we all want increased production, but there is no question that we shall not have increased production unless amenities in

the rural areas are improved, and improved much beyond their present state in some areas which so far have not benefited by other measures which were designed to improve them. It is on that aspect of the matter that I would address the House for a few minutes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) and the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye) both touched on a subject which, as the Parliamentary Secretary will remember full well, is one which has caused both him and me a good deal of concern in the past. I mention it today because I hope that the Minister will take upon himself this extra burden, and call for the file on this subject of the concrete fenways which have not been adopted by county councils.
The county which I represent in this House, the Isle of Ely, was wise enough, under the financial povisions provided in the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act passed during the war, to take over those roads straightaway, and to make them slightly wider than they had to be under the Act. and to turn them straightaway into Class C roads. As a result, the county has been able to use that Act to enable link roads to be made across what otherwise would have been rather isolated fen areas. That policy has proved thoroughly wise and far-seeing.
Unfortunately, the County Council of the Isle of Ely is the only county council which has done this. As the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West quite rightly said, the burden of maintaining roads which were not treated in that way now rests upon internal drainage boards, presumably because when those roads were first built the idea was to improve areas which, up to that time, were extremely badly drained. Some land has even been brought into production.
However, there is no question that those roads are deteriorating in a really alarming way. To the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West, who has just reentered the Chamber, I would say that it is all very well to be rather unctuously self-righteous on behalf of a county council by putting the responsibility on the Government, but if his county council had been wise this problem would not have arisen in his county, just as it has not arisen in mine.
It is ridiculous to expect internal drainage boards to maintain roads. They know nothing whatever about it. They certainly have not now the finance with which to do so, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South said, and if they were to raise their rates sufficiently to enable them to carry out the orders which have been served on them to keep those roads in good repair I think there would be a revolution among their ratepayers—and quite rightly so.
What I object to about the Bill is this. I object most strongly to three or four Ministers being made responsible for roads. It seems to me that the Bill ought to have been introduced by the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation. If his Department had done the job it ought to have done it would have already taken over the country roads which are causing concern to so many hon. Members on both sides of the House.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland) appears to have forgotten that we have been able to debate the subject of roads in agricultural areas since the war, and I raised this matter with the present Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation some time ago in the hope that he would try to see whether he could do something to help the Norfolk County Council, in particular, to take over some of the roads. Not very much anxiety was shown by the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation to take those roads over; not very much willingness to do so was expressed.
I sympathise with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food very deeply in this matter, because I know that his Department is not a road Department. While, under the Bill, my right hon. Friend will not be responsible for the roads, the finance is to come from his Department's Vote, but the responsibility for the roads will, presumably, be the responsibility of the local authorities and of the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, to whom the local authorities are responsible as highway authorities.
Therefore, I should have thought that this Bill ought to have been introduced by the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation. Let the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food take an interest in it, by all means, because the Bill will

help rural areas, but the responsibility for it, and particularly the financial responsibility, certainly ought not to be his.
Nevertheless. I am the last person to want to stand in the way of anything to be done to improve amenities in the rural areas. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have already sufficiently clearly described the appalling conditions in some areas such as that in which I live. They are most appalling in the winter, when, in some places, there is no hard road at all near people's houses. People have to walk three or four miles, perhaps, along a soft road, perhaps axle-deep in mud—the sort of road only a horse and cart can go along, and not always even a horse and cart. That being so, I should have thought that we would not want to do anything to impede the passage of the Bill through the House.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will take this matter up with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation and see whether we can secure a better solution of this problem than leaving responsibility for these roads in the hands of internal drainage boards which, having been served with orders to maintain them, are not in a position to do so. As a result, they have to watch the roads deteriorating, knowing full well that every year that passes simply means that either land has to go out of cultivation or an enormous cost must be involved in putting the roads right.
It is the most foolish form of economy possible to delay putting roads in good repair, because it means that, ultimately, the cost is infinitely greater. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will get in touch with the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation and that if they together cannot solve the problem they will get in touch with the Prime Minister and see whether he can do so.

Mr. Amory: The internal drainage board has power to raise special rates for the repair of roads, which are levied on those who will benefit.

Major Legge-Bourke: I hope my right hon. Friend will realise, as he will do if he goes to the trouble of reading the file to which I have referred, that the users of these roads are by no means confined to agriculturists. The roads are used by heavy traffic and at every weekend by


many motorists who go out on them simply for pleasure. It is the heavy traffic which breaks up the roads most. I hope my right hon. Friend will realise that the present day cost is £3,000 per mile for 2½ inches to 3 inches of tarmac carpeting on existing roads. That is an enormous figure. To put up drainage rates sufficiently to cover that cost would cause a revolution among those who would have to pay them.

6.2 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Gooch: I could not agree more with the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) when he says that this is a matter which primarily concerns the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation. While I welcome the Bill, it can only be a qualified welcome because the Bill touches only the fringe of the problem. Those of us who live in the rural areas know that the problem has existed for many years and that with a great increase in traffic on the roads serving the rural areas the problem has become very great indeed.
I am quite ready to admit that the £4 million which will be spent under the provisions of the Bill will be of assistance in certain areas, but I want to stress that £4 million to be spent on improving the roads in rural Britain will go but a very small way towards doing what we all desire. What follows when the road has been put in order and has been adopted by the local authority, which then has to face the question of maintenance costs? It is a complicated business. Having to face the maintenance costs, it is no use the local authority going to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who, in the first instance, was instrumental in having the road adopted.
The Minister must then go to another Government Department where, up to now, no money has been made available for this type of road. He must plead with that Department—the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation—and say, "Please can you come to the assistance of an impoverished county by making a grant to help it maintain these roads? "This matter causes very great concern to local authorities before they start to think about putting some of these rural roads in order.
I was concerned that during the Minister's opening speech today no reference whatever was made to what has been

described as the human element, I am sorry that the Minister did not once refer to the fact that, in addition to making possible roads upon which farm tractors can travel and animals can walk with a degree of comfort, the Bill would make possible roads which would serve a very human purpose in the rural areas. Among the problems with which an hon. Member who represents a rural area has to deal is the problem of rural roads which are nobody's concern. Sometimes when families are living in houses in muddy country lanes, one may go to a local authority again and again to plead for money to make the roads passable for them and enable them to reach the hard road, but, repeatedly, requests of this kind are turned down by the local authority.
I listened with great interest to the recital by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye) of figures showing the alarming drop in the number of animals on English farms. He might have gone a little further and referred to the alarming drop in the number of men employed on our farms. Last year, the number of farm workers who left the land was over 16,000. During the lifetime of the last Conservative Government over 50,000 farm workers left the land. Is not that a matter for concern when we talk about providing amenities in rural Britain?
While I give a qualified welcome to the Bill, I say quite seriously to the Minister, "Carry on with this type of work, but do not spend all your energies in providing amenities for cattle and forget the desirable amenities for the people who have to tend the animals." If we are to stop the drift from the land—and this alarming drift which has gone on for many years is part of the problem—we have to talk not only about providing for the comfort of farm animals but more and more about providing the right type of amenities for the people who have to work on the farms.
A great deal of money is being spent nowadays on main roads. To a certain degree, I welcome the very considerable improvements which have been carried out upon them, but I have my reservations on that subject and I would much prefer that the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, at the suggestion of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, should see whether he can have


made available a little more than the £4 million which is mentioned in the Bill, so that much more money can be spent on our rural roads.
I hope that the Minister will persevere in good works and carry on with this project. If, by his own effort, he cannot get something done, I hope he will see whether he can induce the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation to undertake the colossal and much-needed scheme which is needed in rural Britain if we are to maintain and increase agricultural production and keep our men on the land.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): Mr. Gower.

Mr. Archer Baldwin: On a point of order. is it not possible for one hon. Member from the West of England to speak in this debate? We have already had several from the Fen country and from Wales.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member knows perfectly well that that is not a point of order. Who is called is entirely in the hands of the Chair.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. Raymond Gower: Those of us who represent Welsh constituencies in this House, on either side, were particularly pleased that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins) had the honour of making the opening speech for the Opposition on this Bill today. Many of us were also pleased and charmed by the way in which he did it. The fact that he was chosen for that duty is, I think, recognition by the Opposition that this Measure is primarily designed to meet a particular need in Wales, just as the presence of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Minister for Welsh affairs during a large part of the debate is recognition by this side of the House that the Bill has that main purpose.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Sir R. Boothby) was disturbed because such a large proportion of the money paid in grants—something over half of the amount—is to be given for roads of this kind in Wales. I am more disturbed by the knowledge that there is not a separate Bill for Wales with

another Bill for other parts of the United Kingdom, because we are assured that it was originally contemplated that £4 million was to be spent in Wales alone.
There are many precedents for this, and I feel sure that if, in the future, we have a Secretary of State for Wales, this would be the kind of Bill to go before the Welsh Grand Committee, a suggestion that has often been made during debates on Welsh affairs. I was rather surprised when making some researches into this question to find that there is provision in the procedure of this House not only for a Scottish Grand Committee, but also for a Welsh Grand Committee.

Mr. J. T. Price: This is a most interesting suggestion by the hon. Member and I am not rising to oppose it, but I should like to remind him that if there were a Welsh Grand Committee the Government would be in the greatest difficulty in manning the Government side of that body.

Mr. Gower: That is amply covered by the procedure governing the Scottish Grand Committee, by which Members for English constituencies are recruited to make up and balance the strength.
I submit that what I have said has been borne out by the fact that the greater part of the money is to be spent on roads of this kind in Wales. I hope hon. Members will recognise that this is a special problem in the Welsh rural areas. Its origin was referred to by my right hon. Friend in his opening speech, and the degree of that problem is shown by the findings of the special panel which considered a specified area in mid-Wales.
One hon. Member suggested that this problem was quite common in other parts of the country. It may be the problem is general and that in Wales it is not different in kind, but it is certainly different in degree. I am sure the House will be interested to know that the panel found that in the rural districts of Aberystwyth and Tregaron, which cover an area of 410 square miles, there are between 60 and 70 miles of unadopted road, while in the rural districts of Knighton and Rhayader, which cover 281 square miles, there are 61 miles of unadopted roads. These lengths of unadopted roads are equivalent to 10 per cent. or more of the roads which are publicly maintained.
Indeed, through the whole of the survey area there were about 10 per cent. unadopted in relation to the length of roads which are publicly maintained, and the findings of the National Farm Survey in the same survey area also bear this out in these words:
Nineteen per cent. of the farm roads in this area were described as good, 40 per cent. as fair, 23 per cent. as bad, and 12 per cent. of the farms are reported as having no roads at all within their boundaries.
That is the extent of our problem, and, of course, the consequence is that in many parts farms, smallholdings and cottages are becoming quite derelict.
That is the reason why the Council for Wales made certain recommendations and why, when the Government White Paper was published last year, the peculiarity of this problem was recognised and a promise made that special ad hoc assistance should be provided in such areas in the Principality for the unclassified and unadopted roads. Also, during the General Election an undertaking was given in the Conservative manifesto that these unadopted areas would receive attention. I gather from my right hon. Friend that this Bill is in fulfilment of that pledge.
We in Wales welcome this Bill. We do not regard it as lightly as the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye). He wanted a Measure that would deal with all the needs of agriculture. He dealt with the whole general problems of agriculture, but this Bill is not designed for those purposes. It is concerned with a particular problem, and I think the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts) was right when he said that the amount of expenditure is not only to be justified by some recognisable increase in production, but it is also related to a particular form of trouble which was once described as social erosion within an area. It is not merely a question of production, but something far larger and in that respect this Bill is of particular value to these areas in Wales.
I should like my right hon. Friend to consider the number of representations which have been made from both sides of the House about the possibility of the global sum being inadequate. The very fact that such an amount was originally intended to be spent in Wales alone suggests that the sum must be inadequate, because parts of England and Scotland

are now added. I ask my right hon. Friend to make representations to his colleagues in the Cabinet with a view to making the whole of this £4 million available for Wales, with a separate sum for comparable areas in other parts of the United Kingdom.
I disagree with those who have suggested that for the spending of this money there should be a tighter formula with percentages expressed in this Bill, because the Bill must be something of an experiment. It may be that the fact that such a formula is not inserted will give the Minister a much wider discretion. The very fact that this Bill has been brought forward is an indication that the Government recognise that this is a real problem needing a real solution, and if, by spending money or offering a certain proportion of the expenditure, it is found that the required result is not achieved, it will then be within the power of the Minister to increase the allocation and to demand less from the local authorities concerned. In that respect, I am glad that no too rigid formula has been included.
I welcome the Bill as much as any of the Labour Members from the Principality, who have welcomed it extremely generously.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. J. T. Price: Having listened to the general chorus of approval which has greeted the Bill from all parts of the House, I would not dream of rising at this late stage to oppose it. But before we dispose of the Second Reading I have one or two small matters which ought to be mentioned as a matter of national policy when we are considering a Measure of this kind, which fundamentally affects the utilisation of the land. Like other hon. Members, I welcome any Measure which tends to increase the amenities and refinements of civilisation and the convenience which those of us who live in the towns enjoy as part of our natural inheritance, but which are so often denied to those in the more remote rural areas.
I have long been interested in rural districts and I claim that I am as familiar as most hon. Members with the mountains and valleys of Wales and Scotland, the Pennines, the Lake District and those beautiful parts of our native land of which we are so proud.

Mr. G. Brown: Including Derbyshire?

Mr. Price: Including Derbyshire. So I would be the last hon. Member to oppose anything which tended to increase the happiness and citizen rights of those who earn their living in those parts of the country.
However, it has always seemed to me, whenever we have discussed agricultural problems, even when they are related to the rich arable lands that have been dealt with in so many Acts of Parliament by both this and the previous Administration, and which flowed from that great Measure, the Agriculture Act, 1947, for which my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) was responsible, that we very often forget that the social results which flow from great changes in our attitude towards agriculture are not always restricted to the agricultural product, or the amenities of the people who live and work on the land.
If the Minister, whose speech I heard with close interest and attention, and with whose views I found myself in agreement, will bear with me for a moment, I will put to him the following point. Any Measure which affects the fundamental betterment of land—and roads are one of the prime factors which affect the fundamental betterment of land—automatically increases the capital value of that land. One day a generation will arise—if I can say this modestly, without appearing in the role of prophet—which will recognise that the betterment of land created by the expenditure of public money is the property of the community.
These things used very frequently to be said in the days of Henry George, when an entire generation of Socialists drank rather deep at that fountain, but today they are generally forgotten. I believe that if the Government are now to embark with the general good will of the House on a programme of spending a large sum of money on a sort of pilot scheme on the valley and hill roads, then they may not get the kind of reaction which they anticipate.
We may get a situation in which those people who like to walk on the hill tops and in the higher reaches of the vales, where they are free from the dangers that beset them on the highways, will find that the broad reaches of the Welsh valleys and Derbyshire dales are infested by motor cycles and all the paraphernalia that now ply on the main roads. They

will certainly find that once a road to a remote farmstead in a mountain valley is made at public expense the capital value of all that property, the land and buildings, will increase tremendously.
I expect that the expenditure of £4 million of public money on this work—I am not at all resisting it—will result, over the years, in a capital appreciation of the hereditaments adjoining that road by very much more than £4 million. To some hon. Members opposite these may be academic points, but there are many people who believe that these are fundamental questions which one day will have to be faced.
Many people have invaded the countryside in the last 10 or 20 years to become gentlemen farmers and enjoy the kind of contact with nature which is regarded as a good thing in the fulfilment of man's higher virtues. There will be an extension of the situation in which many people have gone into the mountains and said, "I should like to retire to this beautiful hilltop; I should like to buy this farm at whatever price I can get it and make a homestead here and make it a little palace." I have seen such places. But people refrain from doing that, because no transport system serves the place.
Once we have roads in the more remote stretches of the country, there will be a tremendous business among estate agents with a lot of advertisements in the "Sunday Observer" and the "Sunday Times" of desirable property in the dales of Derbyshire and the mountains of Wales at fantastic prices.

Mr. Ede: And in "Country Life."

Mr. Price: I hope that I am not abusing the courtesy of the House in developing this point for a few moments, and with this point I sit down.

Mr. H. Rhodes: Not on it.

Mr. Price: We have often objected, in the House, to ribbon development which is against all good town and country planning, and which has gone on in an alarming degree in all parts of the country. I believe—and I ask the Minister to bear this in mind—that any unregulated rebuilding of country roads should be hedged around with satisfactory


covenants to prevent ribbon development where there happens to be a beautiful view and where land would be sold for that purpose.
I hope that I have put those reservations fairly and without rancour. I ask the Minister to consider them as part of the social attitude that the House should adopt towards problems in which the land is involved.

6.28 p.m.

Captain J. A. L. Duncan: Not for the first time in my 24 years in the House, my heart is warmed by the speech of the right hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell). He described the plight of some of his friends in the Welsh valleys and hills. My people in the Highlands of Scotland are suffering and have been suffering from the same sort of difficulties as his people in Wales, so a bond of sympathy between us in this matter exists across the Floor of the House.
The problem of the Scottish Highlands is one of depopulation, just as much as in Wales. If this little Bill—and I emphasise "little"—will do anything to alleviate the difficulties of those in the Highlands, it will do a great deal of good. The main problem in the Highlands is that of transport. We have done a great deal in extending electrification—we are doing that still. We have developed hill farming and other schemes, better housing for our shepherds and cattlemen and so on. One thing which seems to be missing is the road to the hill farm, the road to the shepherd's cottage, the road to the farmer in his "livestock-rearing area," as the rather prosaic Parliamentary term goes.
I welcome this little Bill for what it is, and I am not pretending that it goes any further than it does. I welcome the fact that the Minister of Agriculture and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland are both interested in it. I disagree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) that it is the Ministry of Transport which ought to be concerned with it. If it had been, we should not have had the £4 million. It is only because we have managed to get £4 million from the Treasury through the Ministry of Agriculture that we have got anything at all.
We should proceed with the Bill on the line that we are experimenting in

regard to unclassified and unadopted country roads, and if the experiment works—I believe it will work much faster than the Government at present anticipate—I hope that in due course when the £4 million is used up right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench in four or five years' time will not hesitate to come back to Parliament, not only for the purpose of increasing the sum but, if necessary, and if thought wise as a result of the experiment, to extend the scheme to other areas.
There is only one detailed point about the Bill that I wish to raise. It relates to the exclusion of the crofting counties—

Mr. Thomas Fraser: The Highlands.

Captain Duncan: No, the crofting counties.

Mr. Fraser: The real Highlands.

Captain Duncan: No, Sir. Caithness is a crofting county but it is not the Highlands. Having been Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) should have known that. The problem of the crofting counties, so the Government say, is met because grants are available for purposes similar to those under the Bill under the Congested Districts Act, 1897; but that Act deals only with agriculture, dairy farming, and the breeding of livestock and poultry, and not with forestry. All through the 1897 Act it is clearly laid down that forestry is not included.
In the crofting counties a very large, and, we hope, increasing, amount of forestry has been done, and I believe that the future of the crofting counties depends very largely upon the development of forestry side by side with agriculture. It is a pity that in the Bill we have specifically excluded the crofting counties and, therefore, prevented the benefits going to forestry land. An enormous amount of forestry is being done, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson), the newly-appointed Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, whom we welcome on the Government Front Bench in this new Parliament, will be able to meet us on this point, if not by speech this evening, at any rate during the Committee stage, by ensuring that


the crofting counties are given the whole benefit not only of the 1897 Act but of this Bill in respect of forestry.
I welcome the Bill for what it is, but I hope that in the future as the result of this experiment we shall be able to extend its benefits to unadopted and unclassified roads in other areas of Scotland besides the livestock rearing areas.

6.34 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: I am surprised that the hon. and gallant Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan) should have dragged the crofting counties into our discussion on the Bill and suggested that something was being denied them. It is not long since we had a Measure dealing entirely with the problem of the crofting industry. I cannot remember any Amendments in the name of the hon. and gallant Member to that Measure, but I well remember Amendments in the names of hon. Friends of mine seeking to put responsibility on the new Crofting Commission for the problems of the crofters. The hon. and gallant Gentleman, who is now so sympathetically vocal, was absent from the Lobbies on that occasion.

Captain Duncan: No.

Mr. Ross: This Bill arose out of the problem of Wales. I differ from some of my Scottish Conservative colleagues in that I wish that the Bill related only to Wales. In his speech, the Minister persuaded everyone of the need for the Bill, but when he dealt with the way in which the Bill would tackle the problem he disappointed everyone because of the vagueness of the provisions. There was uncertainty in the minds of hon. Members as to whether the global sum would be sufficient to deal with the problem, particularly when spread over 10 years, making it an average of £400,000 a year.

Mr. Amory: There is no intention necessarily to spread the amount over 10 years. From our point of view, the sooner schemes of the right kind are submitted, the sooner the money will be spent.

Mr. Ross: "The sooner the money will be spent"? Can we have an additional guarantee from the Minister that a further sum will be voted when that amount has been spent? Perhaps that

must wait. At any rate, we have heard that sort of thing before.
I was interested to hear the Minister say that about 50 per cent. of the money voted would be spent in Wales. That led me to the belief that the Bill arose because of the needs of Wales and that the needs of Wales had been properly surveyed. I do not doubt that originally the Bill was meant only for Wales but that other people said, "This is a good thing. Let us bring other people into it." That meant that the total sum had to be increased. I am sure that the promoters knew exactly the amount that would be required for Wales, and that we could have been given a precise Bill for Wales.
Instead of that, by making the Bill a general one, the Government have destroyed any hope in Wales or anywhere else of getting anything out of it. With whom does the initiative lie for implementing the scheme? It lies with local authorities. Local authorities have to bear in mind certain factors when presenting the Minister with proposals. What local authority today, in view of the financial burdens upon local authorities, will submit a proposal when it does not know what financial burden will be involved? The Minister has already told us that the grant will probably be in the region of 50 per cent. but that it will vary. The Minister need not shake his head. I listened carefully to him and heard him say that he had in mind about 50 per cent. but the amount would vary.
The right hon. Gentleman went even further. We have had speeches from Welsh hon. Members talking about the scattered nature of the problem, but the Minister referred to long lengths of roads with which it would be uneconomical to deal. He ought to make the point very clear. He is speaking particularly to Welsh hon. Members. It strikes me that the real problem of the people out in the widely scattered and desolate parts will not even be touched because of the length of road involved and the cost of dealing with it. One hon. Member spoke about a cost of £2,000 per mile—

Mr. E. G. Willis: It was the Minister.

Mr. Ross: —and another hon. Member spoke about £3,500 per mile. The


further we have to go into the more desolate areas the greater will be the cost. We have only to remember our experience in the Highlands and the crofting counties to realise what the problem is. I should not like to quote what it cost per mile to deal with a certain road in Inverness. I am afraid that these areas will get no benefit from the Bill as it presently stands because local authorities will not know what grants they are going to get but they will know what the road will cost, and they also know that if they take over an unadopted road they have to maintain it in future. So they know the extent of a certain amount of the liability, but they do not know what they will get by way of assistance from the Government. That is the weakness of the Bill.
When we consider the present conditions of local authorities, no one can have high hopes of great new roads spreading from Wales through the South of England. I say right away that although I would rather have seen this an entirely Welsh Bill, had that come forward I would have liked to see it followed quickly by a Bill dealing with the rest of the country: because the Highlands of Scotland are not entirely Scotland and this is a tremendous problem in the border counties. It is a problem, too, in the scattered sheep-rearing areas of Ayrshire and also in the Kilmarnock area, which takes in a similar type of country.
So I feel that we shall not see great improvements under this Bill, and I wish the Minister would think again. He has to take certain matters into consideration, and the least he can do is to tell us what considerations he will bear in mind. Is the consideration to be the length of the road, the cost of the road, or the poverty of the local authority? It must be remembered that, when we are dealing with these widely scattered areas, these are the poorest local authorities.
In the case of the larger local authorities, does the Minister mean to give them, say, the amount of help given in the crofter counties? I think I am right in saying that at present these roads are the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland—

Mr. T. Fraser: Yes.

Mr. Ross: So already the Minister of Transport has nothing to do with them. Is the Minister going to vary the proportion of his grant according to the length of the road and the economic position of the local authority? He should give us some information in that respect because, without it, I think the Bill is well-intentioned but useless.

6.42 p.m.

Mr. C. N. Thornton-Kemsley: I confess, frankly, that I am disappointed in this Bill. I am disappointed because in politics, as in so many other fields of life, the good is often the enemy of the best. I was comparatively happy at the end of the previous Parliament when a somewhat similar Bill was introduced because I thought it was a stop-gap Measure to meet an immediate need, and that although is had limited application it would do some good, particularly in Wales.
Now, however, the position is different. We have a new Parliament. It is the same Government but this new Parliament has four or five years of life before it and there are more supporters behind the Government, so we ought to be able to last for our normal period of office. I would have thought that, with the immensity of the problem of farm roads which faces any Government, now was the time to take a new look at the problem and introduce a comprehensive Measure to deal with it. A stop-gap Measure of limited application at the end of the life of one Parliament is one thing; to introduce a Measure of this kind at the beginning of what ought to be the long life of a new Parliament is quite another.
The problem of rural transport and of rural roads is one of the greatest problems that face the farming industry in England, Scotland and Wales today. It is at least comparable to the problem of rural bus services. The time is fast approaching when some of the financial help which is injected into the agricultural industry must be applied to the maintenance of rural roads and the provision of what otherwise would be uneconomic bus services in rural areas. But that is another matter, and now we are faced with this immense problem and I can only repeat my disappointment that the Measure is not dealing comprehensively and boldly with it at the beginning of this new Parliament.
I said that I fear the good may be the enemy of the best because I am afraid that, having dealt with one small aspect of the problem, the most obvious and the most urgent, the Government will say, "We have dealt with roads and we need not do any more." If, however, the House can be told that this is only a limited Measure and that in the course of this Parliament we shall move on to something of real value to agriculture, I shall feel happier.
I am not happy about the definition of livestock rearing areas or about the administration of the Bill. It is placing an almost impossibly invidious task upon the Ministry in England and Wales and upon the Department of Agriculture in Scotland to decide where help should be given as between one area and another. Not only have we to decide as between one area and another, but as between England and Wales on the one hand and Scotland on the other. What is to be Scotland's proportion of the £4 million? Is it to be on the basis of the Goschen formula? How is to be decided that Scotland has her fair share of the limited amount that is to be allocated?
Then another division has to be worked out, the division as to the money spent for the benefit of farming and the money spent for the benefit of forestry. Very strong pleas will be made by that powerful body, the Forestry Commission, for as much as possible of the £4 million. I can see the Forestry Commission getting busy. I have no doubt that it is already busy getting all the schemes out of the pigeon-holes and making sure that it puts in its claims at once and presses them urgently and strongly. I fear greatly that at the end of the day forestry will win and farming will come off very much second best. So I say—and I say it with a full sense of responsibility as a supporter of the Government—that I am disappointed. I am disappointed because I think the Measure is inadequate and that the funds allotted are demonstrably so. It will be very difficult to administer fairly and it is tinkering with a very great problem.

6.48 p.m.

Mr. H. Rhodes: I want to ask two questions. The first is, can any local authority in England,

Wales or Scotland, apart from the counties named on the back of the Bill, apply under it for grants if they can fulfil the conditions of a cattle rearing area for an area within their jurisdiction?
My second question is, has it been overlooked that so many of our areas have bad roads because of disputes about ownership between either the people who live on the farms or the owners of the land and the local authority? These people are entitled to as much consideration as anybody else. I am thinking in terms of an area in my constituency which lies on a hillside just outside the town of Ashton-under-Lyne, where breeding of all kinds is discouraged because neither the veterinary surgeon nor the midwife can get anywhere near the farms on that hillside. The argument as to whose responsibility it is to repair the road, which serves about fifteen farms, has gone on for years.
I should like to know whether a question of that kind must be resolved before an application can be made under the Bill. How can we resolve the impasse? Can the Minister help us in this matter? Many of the bad roads in my constituency are in their present state because the question of responsibility cannot be resolved. I ask the Minister whether he can give me some advice.

6.50 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): I should like to intervene, at this stage, to reply to some of the questions asked about the Scottish aspect of this debate. First, I should like to deal with the last point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) about the conception that there is some kind of contest between agriculture and forestry in this connection. That is wholly wrong. The Measure is limited in extent by the definition of livestock rearing areas and the condition that a grant can be given only if the area to be served is one:
…in which the principal industry, or one of the principal industries, is the breeding, rearing and maintenance of sheep or cattle.
It is clear that it would not be possible for there to be a contest between forestry and agriculture. They might be helping each other, but they certainly could not be in antagonism in making claims for grants under the Bill.

Mr. Grenfell: Timber can be grown on land which rises to a certain height, but sheep go far above it. One can look after the rearing of sheep without making any contribution to the growing of timber.

Mr. Macpherson: I appreciate that, but the point is that in Scotland the two functions of agriculture and forestry are so largely complementary, and will, we hope, become more and more so in future, that I see no antagonism between them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Spence) said that Scotland will come off very poorly under the Bill. I wonder. We must see how the Bill works. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Sir R. Boothby) said that the Bill was devised for Wales. It is true that it had its origin in the Report of the Rural Development Panel of the Council for Wales and Monmouthshire. It was inspired from Wales but that inspiration will, I hope, be of great benefit to Scotland as well. It can always be argued that the sum is too small, but we do not know the extent to which advantage will be taken of this Measure.

Mr. Willis: During the debate figures have been given in respect of Wales which afforded a basis on which the financial calculation was made. Are there similar figures for Scotland?

Mr. Macpherson: The suggestion was made by my right hon. Friend. It was his guess. He said, "I would surmise that 50 per cent. would be spent on Wales." We do not know how it will turn out. It is true that the Measure arose from the needs of Wales. It is now being applied for the benefit of England and Scotland. It is not possible to say how it will work out.
Mention has been made of the survey carried out in Scotland. There was a much fuller survey in Wales, because that is where the need arose. The question was whether Scotland should be brought in or whether we should delay events by having a full survey of Scotland. We thought it best to include Scotland and to ensure that we should get on with the work as soon as possible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West suggested that there

should be a plan put forward by the county councils. It is possible that that would involve a very full survey before any action was taken. That is not the way in which we anticipate that the Measure will work. We anticipate that many local authorities know of unclassified roads which would have been made up had it been possible for them to allot to them a high enough priority in their road programmes.

Sir R. Boothby: How high have the hills to be be? Have they to be very high hills or will medium-height hills do? There are a lot of medium-height hills in my constituency.

Mr. Macpherson: I do not know the height of the hills in my hon. Friend's constituency, so I do not know how to gratify him, but it will be clear from a study of the Bill that an area such as the one he represents is bound to be one of those which will benefit. I hope he will take that for the credit of the Bill which he welcomed rather less than most. He called it the "rummiest" Bill. I had always associated him with a superior and kindred spirit.
On the subject of the method of arriving at the grants to be paid and on the question of the programme, I would only say that the local authorities must have a clear idea of many unclassified roads which they would have made up had it been possible to allot to them a sufficiently high priority in their programmes. I should think that local authorities would wish at an early stage to put in proposals to the Secretary of State. It is up to them to decide whether those roads come within the terms of the Bill—whether
…the road is situated in, or affords access to, a livestock rearing area, and that the improvement would promote the use, or the more efficient use, of land in that area for any purpose of agriculture or forestry.
It is up to them to determine that themselves and, having done so, I should have thought that they would hasten to put in a trial proposal to see what happens.
Then there are the unadopted roads. Those of us who represent agricultural constituencies have for long been well aware of the need to improve roads serving livestock areas. In this case, obviously the proposals will come from those who are, and have been, clamouring for improvements to the roads. They will go


to the county councils, and it will be for the county councils to decide how to treat the matter. It would be a very grave error not to take advantage of the Bill. There is a great demand for it. I am proud that I should be standing at the Dispatch Box today advocating a Measure for which there has been such a big demand among the rural community in my constituency and, I have no doubt, in the constituencies of others who represent livestock rearing areas.
I should like to deal with two other questions, one relating to the Highlands. I assure my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan) that in the Congested Districts (Scotland) Act, 1897, there are all the necessary powers that are required, not only for dealing with roads in livestock rearing areas, but also roads serving forestry districts.

Captain Duncan: Can my hon. Friend give the reference?

Mr. Macpherson: The reference is in Section 4 (1, f). There are two distinct paragraphs, each of which stands on its own. As my hon. Friend will see, there are powers in that Act, as it says,
to aid the providing or improving of …public roads and bridges…
That being so, there are all the necessary powers to confer on the Highlands all the benefits which are conferred by this Measure without the Highlands being actually included in the Measure.

Captain Duncan: Is not that governed by Section 4 (1, a), which restricts it to agriculture, dairy farming and the breeding of livestock and poultry?

Mr. Macpherson: I am advised that it does not, but I will have another look at it before the Committee stage.
The only other point with which I wish to deal is that raised by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) concerning the amount of the contribution. My right hon. Friend dealt with the matter in his opening speech. He mentioned an amount of two-thirds, or better. I do not wish to expand that, because my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary-Secretary will be winding up the debate, and it will be for him to deal with the matter as it affects all three countries. I believe that this is a Measure which

will bring increased prosperity and happiness to areas where livestock rearing is one of the principal industries, and to those whose living is connected with that industry.

7.3 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: Hon. Members on both sides of the House who represent Scottish constituencies will be exceedingly disappointed at the speech of the Joint Under-Secretary. We sympathise with him in having to make his first speech as a junior Minister with so little to say to the House. I should have thought that before he told us that this Bill will be so welcome in the livestock-rearing areas and will bring such happiness and prosperity to those areas in Scotland he would have said how many miles of road, roughly speaking, it was hoped would be improved. But he could not tell us that. He has not the foggiest idea. Nor has he the foggiest idea of the amount of the £4 million to be expended in Scotland.
There is only one thing the Joint Under-Secretary does know; it is that this Bill will limit Government expenditure to £4 million, roughly half of which is to be spent in Waes. That is a great disappointment—

Mr. Macpherson: Would the hon. Gentleman prefer that we should have the normal proportion for Scotland on the Goschen formula?

Mr. Fraser: I am greatly surprised. The Joint Under-Secretary has been in this House for a long time and should know by now that the Goschen formula has never been applied to the allocation of funds for improving highways but only in connection with education; it has been applied recently in the matter of Exchequer equalisation grants, but no further than that.
The hon. Gentleman told us that rough surveys have been made in Scotland, not the same close surveys as in Wales, but he did not tell us how many miles of roads there were in those areas which he estimated would stand to benefit from this Bill. He said that local authorities would be delighted that they were to have this bit of legislation. But local authorities do not know what they are to get. There never was a Bill brought before this House with so little justification for it from the Minister. The only justification is in the case of Wales.
This Bill is plainly designed to deal with a Welsh problem. I speak for hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies when I say that it is quite wrong to attempt to deal with the problem in Scotland merely by extending the provisions of a Bill intended to apply to Wales. No one has the foggiest idea how many miles of road is to be improved, how much money will be available to be spent in Scotland, or what kind of percentage grant will be made available to local authorities. The Joint Under-Secretary has not dealt with one of the several important questions asked by hon. Members on both sides of the House who represent Scottish constituencies.

Mr. Macpherson: May I ask if the hon. Gentleman would prefer a long detailed survey and the postponing of this benefit or would he prefer that we should go ahead with this as quickly as possible?

Mr. Fraser: I prefer that we should know how many miles of road are to be improved before deciding the amount of money to be made available. I most certainly prefer that we should wait six months or twelve months to know the size of the problem before introducing such a Bill as this. In any case, if, as everyone has prophesied, the £4 million proves to be a hopelessly inadequate sum, the Joint Under-Secretary, or his right hon. Friend, will have to come back to Parliament for more money to do the job properly. It would have been far better to measure the problem before deciding on the remedy, or to extend this Welsh Bill to deal with the serious problem in Scotland.

7.7 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Fell: I hope the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) will forgive me if, to use the well-known words, I do not follow him. It might be better if I did try to follow him, but my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary would certainly never forgive me, and we cannot agree with the short tirade—which told us very little—which was raged against my hon. Friend on this his first appearance at the Dispatch Box.

Mr. Ross: Speak for yourself.

Mr. Fell: The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has "had a go." I suggest now that he allows me to have one.
In my constituency we have no mountains or hills. I do not think that we have any heaths, but we have some unadopted and some unclassified roads. Norfolk is the wealthiest and finest farming area in the country, but it is common for us to have to go to the succour of Wales, and occasionally to the succour of Scotland. Nevertheless, there are problems in my constituency which mostly affect those areas of very low-lying ground where there is some poor land, and where there exist unadopted and unclassified roads.
Some hon. Members who have spoken have not seriously thought about the size of the problem. They appear to think that every unclassified and unadopted road in the country can be dealt with under some such Measure as this, which is really nonsense. There are few such roads in my constituency compared with some Welsh constituencies and many English constituencies. But if we made up all the unadopted and unclassified roads in my constituency, I estimate that it would cost nearly £500,000. It must be reasonable, therefore, to confine this to roads in the poorer areas where help is needed.
There is one thing which I wish to ask my right hon. Friend. I have no doubt at all that it was right of the Government to bring in what has been described by one or two hon. Members as a stopgap Measure and that it was right to help Wales and Scotland by bringing in the Bill as quickly as possible, but I should like to know whether some thought is going to be given to the other unclassified and unadopted roads in poorer areas which do not come into the category of livestock-rearing areas and of "mountains, hills or heath." I very much hope that such thought will be given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture.

Mr. Hayman: The hon. Gentleman has already ruled out that possibility by decrying the suggestion made from this side that consideration should be given to unclassified and unadopted roads in other parts of the country.

Mr. Fell: I have not decried any such thing. I am saying that this is a Bill which has been brought in quickly to help this specific problem, which the people of Wales have welcomed very


much and to which the people of Scotland, who are not always too eager to welcome things too wholeheartedly, perhaps, for some reason, have also given a qualified welcome.
This is a start, but let us make sure that we continue the work and see that what money is needed in the future is forthcoming. May we also have some consideration given to those roads which do not specifically come under the Bill, which, after all, was really designed to cover those areas based on the contours and district of Wales. I refer to unadopted roads on the poorer lands which do not come into the category of "mountains, hills or heath."

Mr. Hayman: Will the hon. Gentleman take into account the calculation I gave the House, which was that on the basis of spending £4 million in 10 years and the cost of building these roads being something like £2,500 a mile, all that we shall achieve with a 50 per cent. grant is 350 miles?

Mr. Fell: Of course I shall not take that into account, because I know how fair the hon. Gentleman is, and I am sure that he could not have been in the House when my right hon. Friend replied in an intervention to the charge that the money was going to last for 10 years. I believe that the Government are very hopeful that the money will be quickly used in order to get the job done.

Mr. Hayman: I was in the House at the time.

Mr. Fell: I will not keep the House any longer, except to say that it is regrettable—though perhaps brave of him that the hon. Gentleman should admit being in the House at the time and yet should still maintain the position which he has tried to point out to me.

Mr. Ross: Surely the hon. Gentleman should realise that the question of how long it takes to spend the money makes not the slightest difference to the number of miles made up, which is the point raised by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Fell: Of course it does not, but I have not heard any Government spokesman say that at any time in the future, when the money has been used up, there will be no more money. This is a Bill

which has been designed to deal with a specific problem and one promoted by a progressive Government who have taken the initiative in dealing with the problem and who will go on tackling it.

Mr. Ross: If the hon. Gentleman believes that, can he justify it, because I specifically asked the Minister whether when this £4 million was spent we should get any more, and he said nothing?

Mr. Fell: I must not allow these interruptions to delay me any longer. There is certainly no need for me to justify my right hon. Friend. He is quite capable of justifying himself.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. G. B. Drayson: I wish to welcome this Bill on behalf of those of my constituents who live in the hill farming and livestock rearing areas in the Craven district. I hope that the highway authorities, urged on, no doubt, by the National Farmers' Union, will not be backward in submitting proposals to the Minister. I was particularly glad to note that Clause 5 provides for cattle grids.
My right hon. Friend told us that he intended to give a more comprehensive definition to the livestock rearing areas, with particular reference to the production of milk, because the old definition has often precluded farms from being included under the provisions of the Livestock Rearing Act. The problem of milk production and the getting of it to the collection point is one very much concerned with the provision of better road facilities.
I hope that my right hon. Friend's reference to a wider and more comprehensive definition means that when the present Livestock Rearing Act shortly comes to an end, he has in mind introducing a new Measure which will be more comprehensive than the present Act, because it is often not clearly understood by farmers in livestock rearing areas why one farm benefits from the provisions of that Act and a neighbouring farm does not.
I wish this Bill a speedy passage through the House. Like other hon. Members, I also feel that the £4 million may not prove to be sufficient, but let us first spend that money before we ask for more.

7.17 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I support this Bill as far as it goes, although I am not quite sure whether it goes as far in solving one problem as I had hoped. It is the problem of the unadopted road as it applies to a farm which has no other means of access. That is a farming problem concerning the production of livestock which is by no means confined to Wales or even to Scotland.
We have a number of such farms in Cornwall, though I am not sure whether they come within the definition of Clause 5. We have many miles of unadopted roads on the North Coast which are the despair of the local authorities, and particularly of the parish councils who do not know how to deal with them at all. These roads came into being mainly as mine roads a very long time ago when mining enterprises in Cornwall which have long since disappeared grew up.
The roads have no known owners. They are not situated on large estates and are not estate roads in any sense, so that in their case the several hon. Members who are concerned about money being spent on taking over the liabilities of big estates need feel no alarm. That question does not arise at all because the roads pass through smallholdings in what was once mining country. The mines that were once there have been replaced by a number of scattered holdings in a fairly thinly populated area.
The frontagers are far too few for the local authorities to be able to insist on these roads being made up by them, and their state is really quite unbelievable. The only way to see anything comparable in this country would be to go to a cinema and see an American comic film. Some of the roads have holes in them up to two feet deep and are permanently flooded. Others take a right angle turn to avoid a boulder and have never been properly constructed. They represent the only access to the smallholdings and farms, many of which consist of buildings constructed as mine cottages and other mine buildings in the far distant past.
I feel that in these abandoned mining areas, many of which are situated on the North Coast, which is famous for its beef production—productivity could be con-

siderably increased if the roads were improved. Although these areas are dealing with the breeding, rearing and maintenance of cattle and sheep, I am not sure whether they would be considered to be mountains, hills or heaths within the definition of livestock rearing area in Clause 5, unless one could say that St. Agnes beacon is a mountain and the rough land on the coastline of the North Coast is heath.
I hope that it may be possible for some of these roads to be improved under the provisions of this Bill. If this can be done it will meet part of a very urgent problem which has existed in Cornwall for some time and where, incidentally, we have never had a three-field system of agriculture as mentioned by the Minister of Agriculture. The villages are scattered and strung out; not like English villages in the Saxon parts of the country which are collected round one central spot. The improvement of roads is of great importance to agriculture in areas of the West, such as Cornwall. I hope that something can be done under this Bill to proceed in that direction, but, if that is not possible, perhaps some further measure may be brought in later to deal with these areas.

7.22 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Willis: I rise to reinforce the protest made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) concerning the lack of information about Scotland and the reasons why Scotland should be included in the Bill. We are all anxious to obtain what the Government desire to do, namely, to encourage agriculture and increase food production. But we have had no information as to how Scotland is placed under the Bill.
I interrupted the Joint Under-Secretary to ask whether there were any statistics for Scotland comparable with those given for Wales. One hon. Member opposite gave us certain information to the effect that in certain areas, where surveys had been made, one-tenth of the roads came within the provisions of the Bill. This gave an idea of the mileage involved. He gave a number of other figures; but we have no idea at all what is involved in Scotland, and I think that we should be


given some information before proceeding with the Bill.
My second appeal is concerned with the financial implications of the Bill. Outside the seven crofting counties, in something like ten counties in Scotland, most of which are affected by the Bill, the product of 1 d. rate is less than £500. According to the figures given by the Minister, every mile of road dealt with under the Bill will cost between £2,000 and £3,000. Supposing that the Government give a 75 per cent. grant—and we have no guarantee that they will—for every mile of road dealt with there will be an increase of ld. on the rates. To deal with 12 miles of road in a year will increase the rates by 1s. in the £ in these areas.
I should have thought that these areas, not in the crofting areas at all, needed more generous help if they were to get anything done. That raises the question of agricultural rating in the counties of Scotland, which is a very much bigger problem than this. Surely, when we come to look at these things, the Government cannot be so optimistic as the Joint Under-Secretary led us to believe.
How many miles, for instance, in the county of Berwick, which has a large number of hill sheep areas and is a fairly large county where a 1d. rate raises under £500, will be dealt with? I cannot imagine the Berwick County Council increasing the rates by 1s. in the £ in order to get 12 miles of road dealt with. That is all the mileage they will get if the rates are raised by Is. in the £. Is that the kind of progress the Government expect to make?
Far more consideration should have been given to the position in Scotland before including it in the Bill. Regard should have been given to our experience in the crofting counties where a scheme, as the Joint Under-Secretary has said, has already been in operation for a great many years. Even in the crofting counties, in spite of the most generous grants given, the county authorities find it very difficult to do all that is necessary. They cannot get on with the work. I should have thought that, in view of the experience in the crofting counties—because unlike the rest of Britain we have experience of this—the Government

would have looked at the Bill again before including Scotland in it.
We have every sympathy with the objects of the Bill and no desire to oppose it. We should like to see it accomplish what it sets out to do, but no information has been given to us to indicate that this will be done. From my examination of the Bill and its financial arrangements, I think that the results will be meagre and certainly very much less than the Joint Under-Secretary gave us to believe.

7.28 p.m.

Mr. George Brown: The Bill does only one thing. It fills a day of Parliamentary time which the Government were obviously a little hard-pushed to fill successfully. There is nothing else that it does. The Bill has not grown out of any desire to deal with the roads in Wales or anywhere else. What has happened is that the Government, having suddenly changed their minds about having a short Session and having decided to have a long one, had a note sent out by the Lord President of the Council to his colleagues saying, "As we have to carry on until July before we go on holiday, has anyone any Bills ready?"
I have seen that sort of note before. We know that such notes are circulated. The Lord President of the Council got on to the Ministry of Agriculture saying, "Have you anything?" The Ministry said, "No," and the Lord President said, "You had better get something ready quickly." The Ministry said, "We intend to do something about roads. If you are hard up for a Bill, here is a Bill."
We shall have had three speeches from the Ministers by the end of the day. We have had two Ministerial speeches both of which have been miserable performances, because there is nothing to say about the Bill. There is nothing that the Joint Under-Secretary for Scotland can say.
No one knows how much mileage is to be dealt with; no one knows how much the roads will cost. I have seldom heard the Minister of Agriculture speak in such a pathetic fashion. He almost complained, "Fancy asking me how many miles we are to deal with. I do not know how many miles of road are to be dealt with. Fancy asking me how much it is to cost. I do not know how much a mile it will


cost, I do not know how many miles and I do not know what the total cost is. Fancy saying that it will last ten years. I do not know how much we can do each year."
In the good old days of British constitutional practice Ministers used to think about a Bill before rushing it to the House. My complaint is that this Bill has been landed upon us without anybody having a clue about what is involved in the problem with which it sets out to deal. The responsibility for this ill-thought-out, pathetic little Bill does not rest solely upon the Lord President, who wanted a Bill introduced quickly into the House. Part of the responsibility lies upon the Minister for Welsh Affairs—the Home Secretary—whom I see sitting at the end of the Government Front Bench.
Having received the report of the Council for Wales he was faced with the problem of having to be able to say that the Government were doing something about it, and I have no doubt that he said, "Well, Chancellor, how much can you afford to let us have?" and the Chancellor said, "Well, if you do not take more than £400,000 a year for the next ten years I shall let you have a ten years' purchase, or £4 million, but do not take it too quickly; spread it over ten years." The Minister for Welsh Affairs then said, "Now I can go to Wales and make a speech saying that we are all for Wales and we have voted it £4 million." That is the other half of the story; it is a pathetic business.
A very great problem is involved here. Every hon. Member who has spoken—including the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson)—has stressed the need for a road policy in the rural areas. They have, in fact, been appealing to the Government to apply their minds to the problems of rural Britain, and especially to the road problems. That is the appeal, and that is the problem to be attacked. The Bill does not do it. The hon. Member for Truro knows that his problem is not attacked by the Bill. As the most perspicacious speaker from the benches opposite—the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley)— said, this was a stop-gap at the end of the last Parliament; it remains a stop-gap at the beginning of this Parliament. It does not apply itself to the problem.
This £4 million is voted in respect of a job which may or may not help some areas. It will do nothing upon a coordinated basis. Some people, if they are quick and lucky, will get some money, and people in other places who may need it more badly will not get anything, because the money will have run out before they put in their schemes. Some places, in respect of which the expenditure of money upon the roads is tremendously important, will not get the money because—under the Minister's own definition—it will be too uneconomical to carry out the schemes.
The frightening thing for both Wales and Scotland was the Minister's statement —which I took down—that "when the schemes come up we can see if they are worth doing. Then we can see whether they are not too uneconomical. If they are not too uneconomical we can do them." The problem facing Wales, Scotland and some parts of England is the fact that the putting right of their roads is too uneconomical, in that sense. If the Bill were to do what is largely claimed for it, it would be tackling that problem. That is just what it is not tackling, and that is just what the Minister has not the slightest intention of tackling. The Minister for Welsh Affairs—and the Chancellor is prepared to let him do it—is spreading £4 million around as thinly and as easily as he can without really tackling any problem. One Joint Under-Secretary has failed to deal with the problem; we shall try the other one shortly.
From the point of view of the taxpayer, what is the use of using £4 million to encourage authorities to take over unadopted, inaccessible, little-used roads, at considerable capital expenditure, and then saying to them, "You will not get any grant in respect of the subsequent maintenance of those roads"? That is merely telling the already over-pressed ratepayers in those areas, "You do this, and your burdens in future will be even greater than they are today." What help is that to rural Britain? It is not the least help. It merely adds to the burdens.
The Bill is not only petty and not very useful; it is also downright bad in that conception, and I warn the Minister that he will have to fight very hard during the Committee stage if he is thinking of letting this Bill go out without any provision for maintenance expenditure in


respect of the roads dealt with under it. He will have to do something about that, and I hope that he will have second thoughts.
Another worrying feature—and this shows how little the matter has been thought about—is that the Minister, when asked what sort of grants he had in mind, said "We shall have to see how many schemes come up. We have £4 million. We can spread it out over the ten years. We shall have to see how the schemes come in." In other words, the more that local authorities try to do, the smaller grant they will receive. The law of diminishing returns will apply. If the Bill encourages them to attempt something, the pro rata grant is bound to be reduced.

Mr. Amory: Not necessarily.

Mr. Brown: The Minister says, "Not necessarily," but all that could mean is that the whole £4 million could go in the first or second year. Does the Minister agree?

Mr. Amory: I believe that I answered that question earlier, when I pointed out that we were not spreading this money over a period of ten years. The pace at which it will be spent will depend upon the number and type of schemes put up.

Mr. Brown: But if the Minister now says that he will take up all the schemes which he thinks are right, no matter if the £4 million goes in the first or second year, what is to become of his other answer, namely, that he cannot say what the rate of grant will be until he sees how many schemes are coming in? He cannot have it both ways. He cannot say, "We will wait to see how many schemes we get," and then also say, "We are not going to wait to see how many schemes we get; we are going to spend all the money." If he is not going to keep anything back for the later stages of the ten-year period, why cannot he tell us now what the rate of grant will be? If he is prepared to see all the money go in the first two years he must make up his mind what will be the rate of grant.
What he will do is to see how many schemes are likely to be coming in—through his officers—and make a general rate of grant which will ensure that all the money is not spent too quickly. He

will make as good a calculation as he can of the rate at which the money will go out, so that he makes sure there is some money left for those counties which cannot get in quickly enough. He has to do that administratively, otherwise areas where assistance is badly needed will be left out. I repeat that the more work that is done the lower—inevitably—must be the rate of grant in respect of each scheme. That is a sad and awfully bad thing.
Let us consider the scope of the Bill. We are told that the cost per mile of carrying out the various jobs will be £3,000, and the rate of expenditure will be £400,000 a year, that is, 130 miles of roads per year, for ten years. My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins) was talking about his fifty schemes, with 60 miles of roads in each. All this money could be swallowed up in Brecon and Radnor and the effect hardly noticed.
We have been trying for a long time to get this Government to live up to their pre-1951 story about the need for a long-term policy. On many occasions I have tried to persuade the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture to drop his coyness and live up to the demands he used to make for a long-term policy. The last General Election has had this effect on the Conservative Government: it has made them get long-term ideas. They have not produced a long-term policy, not only for agriculture but for rural Britain. This scheme for 130 miles of road a year for ten years is their long-term policy.

Mr. Hayman: If my right hon. Friend includes in his calculations a 50 per cent. grant in relation to the probable expenditure of £2,500, all that we shall get will be 80 miles per year.

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is an educationalist while I am only one of the products of the educational system. I might well get 130 as my answer where he gets only 80.
Anyhow, 1et us not be unkind to this miserable Government and to this pathetic Bill. Let us give them the benefit of the doubt and say that 130 miles of road per year will be the extent of their long-term policy. The problem is very real and there is great need. The Government have the money and can make


the money available if they will only decide how to tackle the road problems in rural Britain and in the farming areas where the roads are so bad. Let them decide how to tackle the problem of the lack of amenities in the countryside.
The problem is not limited to Wales or to Scotland. I have seen the roads in the Fens and I know there is a considerable problem there. There are also problems in Cornwall and elsewhere. The Government would have done much better to have dealt with those problems than to bring in this Bill.

Major Legge-Bourke: If the right hon. Gentleman's Government had only taken a little more notice of what some of us were urging them to do in relation to concrete fenways at that time, we should not be in the position in which we find ourselves today.

Mr. Brown: If only the Labour Government had done everything that was likely to be needed to be done there would be no need for a Government any more. Fortunately for us politicians, everything does not get done. If only the hon. and gallant Gentleman had taken more notice of what we did he would not have been quite so miserable as he was during those years. At any rate, we never introduced anything so miserable as the Bill. I am on the hon. and gallant Gentleman's side at the moment and he has been a little less than grateful for my support.
The Bill does not deal with the problem that exists. I quite agree with the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns; this is a disappointing Bill and is a waste of Parliamentary time. Whatever value it has, it will make other problems worse for the counties that take action under it. Administratively, it will be extremely difficult to handle, as the gentlemen at No. 55 Whitehall know, and it will leave the problems just as severe and difficult at the end. We shall have spent £4 million to case the way for the Minister for Welsh Affairs when he pays his rare visits to Wales and we shall have solved a problem for the Lord Privy Seal in that he will have used up one more day of Parliamentary time between now and the Summer Recess. That is all we shall have got for our £4 million, and I hardly think it is worth it.

7.44 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): Despite the right hon. Gentleman's knock-about turn at the end of his speech, this Measure has been universally welcomed by the people in the areas most affected, and particularly in Wales. There was no doubt about its general reception in the House. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman was not in the House when these speeches were being made. He dodged in and out a good deal in the course of the debate. He had a crack about the effect of the last Election on the Conservatives. We can bear the effect of the last Election much better than he can. It is an effect in which the country rejoices.
This Measure does not set out to be dramatic. It is a beginning in an extremely difficult field. A Welsh Member on the Opposition side made the point that he thought this was the best Bill of its kind. He did not qualify it as he might have done, because it is the only Bill of its kind. It is a start on a very difficult problem and it is inevitably difficult to give precision to exactly what mileage can be covered.
The definition of the Bill is that it will assist the rebuilding of unadopted and unclassified roads in the livestock rearing areas. We had some precision in the survey in Wales, but less certainty in other areas. We have a broad estimate of about 4,000 miles of roads which might qualify for grant, and the mileage in Wales would be rather more than half of that figure. I am not disputing for one minute that road problems exist outside the livestock rearing areas of course they do. They exist in the Fens, in Cornwall, in the lowlands of Wales, in Scotland, and in many other areas throughout the country.
The Bill makes a start in the upland areas where we know that the problems are most severe. If the right hon. Gentleman had been in the House when his hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) was speaking—

Mr. G. Brown: I was here.

Mr. Nugent: —he would realise that the speech carried quite a bit of weight when making the point that expenditure


of public money on the improvement of roadways inevitably increases land values. It does, and that is one of the points that the Government must have in mind in bringing a Measure of this kind before the House. Another point is that where the Government commits public funds for essentially local problems they must be extremely careful that each problem is recognised nationally as something to be dealt with nationally.
In this approach we have concentrated our attention on those upland areas, the livestock rearing areas, particularly with reference to Wales, where the problem is well known to exist. We judge that public opinion generally recognises that here is not just an agricultural problem, and not even just a road problem but, as several hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, a sociological and human problem. These areas are becoming depopulated, particularly in the uplands of Wales. There is a national problem, if we are to make it possible for people to continue to live and work there and to have reasonably happy lives.
In these areas public opinion recognises that public funds may properly be spent. It is in those circumstances that my right hon. Friend has brought this Measure before the House. We need not make any excuse for not going further at this stage. We are doing something new and to that extent the Government should be commended rather than criticised. It would be wrong to commit larger sums of public money on such expenditure without making a start in this Bill and seeing how it goes.
I have given a figure of 4,000 miles which we think will qualify, but how much of that will actually be applied for we cannot anticipate. The process of application will be that county councils will judge whether the need is strong enough to warrant their putting forward a scheme, knowing that they will have to bear the maintenance costs in the future. I was asked on more than one occasion the procedure with voluntary contributions. The county councils will make their proposals to us, and we shall consider the merits of the applications first of all with regard to the farming and forestry considerations involved and as to what extent farming communities will benefit by the proposition. Secondly,

we shall consider the length of roadway concerned. We shall not have an exclusive consideration of the rate income of the county concerned. We may take that into consideration, but, primarily, we shall be concerned with the benefit—agriculturally, socially and economically —to the area concerned.
After we have decided what rate of grant we are prepared to give, it is then for the county council, if it so wishes, to invite the local landowners to make a contribution, if, in the judgment of the county council, it is wise to do so. It is entirely for the county council, and we would make our grant quite independently of whether or not it received voluntary contributions. We recognise that, by the very nature of things, the landowners in many areas could not possibly make a voluntary contribution, for they simply have not the money with which to make it, but there will be some areas where the local landowners may be in a better position.
There may be some areas where, perhaps, the landowners would go to the county council and say they were prepared to make a contribution, and will try to prompt the county council to make a proposal for a scheme of this kind. That is, broadly, how the application will work and how we shall make the assessments for grants.
In his opening speech, my right hon. Friend said that he thought it was unwise, at this stage, to define a rigid scheme of rates of grant, but that he intended that the rates of grant may be as much as 66 per cent., and, indeed, might be higher. They might be as high as 75 per cent., but what we wish to do is to see what sort of applications we get and how they look as propositions as they come in, and then we can begin to assess what sort of rate of grant will be needed to get the work going.
It is certainly our intention to spend the £4 million. If we can spend it in less than ten years, we shall be delighted, but it is simply impossible to tell at this stage. What we are doing in the case of county councils, which are, as we know, bodies with very limited resources which have not been able to tackle this problem up to date, is to put them in the way of tackling it by making some contribution. If they have no resources, we will put


them in the way of raising them. We shall be ready and willing through our Agricultural Land Service to advise the county councils concerned of the agricultural or forestry situation which exists in their particular areas, and as to what sort of roads would be suitable to serve the particular needs of these people.
I ought not to leave the House in any doubt that my right hon. Friend and I feel most keenly the human problem which is involved in these areas. The people who live in these remote upland areas are grand people. They have to be; if not, they would not live there. Most of us go into these areas in the summer time, when it is very nice to go for a drive and see beautiful country, but when we come to the winter, we find that life is hard there. Therefore, anything that we can do to make it a little less difficult for them to get to and from their homesteads and farms we shall be very glad to do. We believe that this Measure will help them in this way.
I must deal with one particular point —a complaint about something which is not in the Bill—on which I know some of my hon. Friends, and particularly my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) feel very keenly, and that is the question of the fen roads. I certainly do know them, as my hon. and gallant Friend has said. I have seen them many times, and I know a good many of them. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that we have looked at them extremely carefully in this context.
We had a survey made last month in order to give us an indication of the sort of condition they are in. I think it would be right to say that there is only one important link road, in South-West Norfolk, which is being used for through traffic—the sugar beet traffic—and it is the Duchy Road, and I understand that there is some prospect of it being dealt with.
The Ministry of Transport has offered to classify it as a Class II road, so that its future maintenance position will be taken care of. I understand that the Ministry of Transport is still in consultation with the Norfolk County Council, and that it is not impossible that some solution may emerge from these consultations. We are most anxious to see that something shall emerge. As for the rest of

the roads that are really farm access roads, their condition is still quite adequate.

Mr. Renton: My hon. Friend is, presumably, speaking from the report made last month. Has he had a report made on the condition of these roads during the wet winter months?

Mr. Nugent: I have had many reports and I have seen many photographs, and I accept that these roads do not make a very wonderful picture in the winter months. The point we have to consider here is whether the road fits into the general considerations which I tried to define to start with, and to what extent the Government are justified in spending public funds on essentially local purposes, which will increase local land values and, at the same time, put a burden on the taxpayers nationally.

Mr. Dye: What, then, is the difference between these roads, which lead into and go through a stock rearing area, and those which lead to the Fens and are really connecting one farm to another and one village to another? The hon. Gentleman is laying down a principle, and I would ask him what is the difference between the two.

Mr. Nugent: The difference is a very simple one. If the hon. Gentleman goes outside the House and talks to anyone outside, let him tell the world that the fen farmers are in a state of extreme difficulty, that life is extremely hard there and that they are faced with the same kind of geographical and climatic problems as the people who live in the Highlands of Wales. The answer is that the nation as a whole is simply not conscious, nor indeed am I, that the two problems are comparable; they are not.
I recognise that there are problems in the Fens, and that these roads are not being maintained as we would wish them to be, but the fact is that the internal drainage boards have a statutory obligation to maintain them, which was placed upon them by earlier Governments, and, to maintain them, they can raise a rate-from adjoining farmers who benefit from them, and it is very hard to say that that is a need which should be met from funds obtained from the taxpayers as a whole, for the benefit of people who live in the Fens.

Major Legge-Bourke: I think my hon. Friend has put his finger on the nub of the whole problem. Is it fair to expect internal drainage boards to maintain these roads? That is a matter of policy which my hon. Friend has to decide. Has he got any nearer to a decision on this problem, which has existed for a number of years?

Mr. Nugent: One internal drainage board has now proposed to levy a rate and I understand that others are thinking of it. We are now arranging local conferences with the internal drainage boards concerned to advise them as to the sort of standard necessary for these roads. We have a strong impression that the sort of standard of which they are thinking is that for county roads, which would, of course, put an enormous burden on, and be far beyond the needs of, the localities. Bearing in mind, however, that these are farm access roads with limited traffic, and not through roads, the cost is not too high, and the general condition of the metalling of the roads is still quite sound except, according to the Report, to a limited extent in the Mildenhall district. The cost, therefore, is really not beyond the means of farmers and others in those localities, so we feel that we must ask the internal drainage boards to have another go at it.

Mr. Dye: Is the Parliamentary Secretary referring to the concrete roads which were put down during the war, and which are now tumbling about all over the place? I referred to Hilgay and to the Ten Mile Bank area.

Mr. Nugent: Yes.
The problem of soft droves has been particularly mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill). I agree that there is a problem there. There are these soft droves, and they give very poor access to the people living at the end of them. Once again, I feel that we are not able to deal with that and many other problems that exist in the lowland areas by this Measure, which makes a start with particular problems in a limited field where everyone accepts that there is a case which the Government ought to meet out of public funds.
Perhaps, one day, the problem of these soft droves can be coped with—together

with all these other problems in the lowland areas—but at present we have brought this limited Measure before the House to deal with this particular section of the problem. I hope and believe that it will go some way towards doing it.
I was very delighted to hear one hon. Member after another, particularly from Wales, welcoming the Bill. I hope that they will encourage their county councils to put forward claims. We shall do our utmost to get them going and to treat their applications generously. We are most anxious to see this Bill used. The £4 million has been laughed at as being a small sum of money, but it is a large sum of money and has to come from the pockets of the community. We are committing it because we believe that it is committed in a worthwhile cause. I would, therefore, conclude by asking the House to give this Bill a Second Reading, to send it to a Committee with good wishes and to provide thereby something which will be, I believe, of great value to those in the upland areas.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 38 [Committal of Bills].

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (IMPROVEMENT OF ROADS) [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

[Sir RHYS HOPKIN MORRIS in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision, by means of Exchequer grants and otherwise, for the improvement of certain roads situated in, or affording access to, livestock rearing areas. it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(a) grants to local authorities, not exceeding in the aggregate four million pounds, in respect of a proportion of the expenditure incurred by those authorities in carrying out proposals for the improvement of roads situated in, or affording access to, livestock rearing areas, being proposals approved by a Minister of the Crown before the end of the period of ten years beginning with the date of the passing of the said Act;


(b) any administrative expenses incurred by a Minister of the Crown for the purposes of the said Act;
(c) any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under Part I of the Local Government Act, 1948, or under the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1954.—[Mr. Amory.]

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

MILK MARKETING

8.5 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Harmar Nicholls): I beg to move,
That the Draft Amendments of the Milk Marketing Scheme, 1933, a copy of which Amendments was laid before this House on 5th April. 1955, in the last Parliament, be approved.
My first appearance at this Box was to answer Questions about eggs; my second, in the normal business of the House, is to talk about milk. There is no doubt that so far I have dealt with matters of real nutrition, and I hope that to move from eggs to milk is considered an advance in the Parliamentary sense.
These Amendments to the Milk Marketing Scheme for England and Wales have three main objects. Firstly, they are designed to give the Board the necessary powers to continue the marketing arrangements introduced during the war, and operated since, under the Defence Regulations. Secondly, they will enable the Board to operate the guarantee arrangements for milk which were previously operated by the Ministry of Food. Thirdly, they will bring the Scheme up to date in certain other respects to which I shall refer later.
Hon. Members will know that these Amendments are part of a larger number which were circulated to all registered producers, according to the proper procedure about a year ago. That was done in order to give the registered producers a chance to ask for a poll, if they so decided, as to whether or not the Amendments should be passed on to my right hon. Friend for his further action.
At that stage no request for a poll was received, and the Amendments were therefore formally submitted to my right hon. Friend. They were published, and once published the opportunity was there for

formal objections to be made to them. A number of objections were received and a public inquiry was set up with Mr. Edmund Davies, Q.C., acting as Commissioner. The inquiry was completed on 21st December last, and the Commissioner's Report was submitted in January.
In the light both of the objections that had been submitted and the Commissioner's Report, my right hon. Friend decided that certain modifications should be made to the Amendments as first submitted. To those modifications the Board has given its assent. The Agricultural Marketing Act requires that only those Amendments to which objection has been taken need be submitted to Parliament for its approval. It is for that reason that we have not now to consider all 94 Amendments but only the seven which were the subject of objection at the proper time. I think that it would be right to add that in any case the remaining 87 were of a minor character, and I have no doubt that that was one of the reasons why no great objection was put in at the time.
Of the seven Amendments now before the House, a few, whilst important, are not so important in relation to the others. I think that that applies to the first two, and I feel there is no point in wasting the time of the House because the Explanatory Notes will probably satisfy hon. Members who may be interested.
The third Amendment relates to several matters which are of considerable importance and should have some comment. The first deals with the implementation of the guarantee agreements. The Board has, in fact, been implementing the guarantee for milk on behalf of the Government since its marketing powers were restored on 1st April of last year. The Board has been operating the guarantee under the terms of the Defence Regulation, and this Amendment makes permanent provision in the Scheme for it to continue doing what, in fact, it has been doing since April, 1954.
The third Amendment will also require the Board to give the Minister notice of its intention to exercise certain of its main marketing functions. Previously, as hon. Members will remember, the procedure was that the Board could put new ideas into operation, and it was only after they had been so put into operation


that my right hon. Friend could deal with them. Now they are required to be submitted to my right hon. Friend so that he can judge whether they are likely to be contrary to public interest or not. A provision of this kind, requiring prior notification to the Minister, and which we know is a common feature of the marketing schemes, enables him to consider the matter before the proposed action by the Board is put into effect, instead of having to wait until afterwards.
Lastly, under the third Amendment, the Board's power will be extended in certain ways, as indicated in the 1949 Act. In the form in which the Amendment was originally submitted before the modification, it sought power for the Board to manufacture anything required in the production and distribution of milk, as well as a general power to provide services for the benefit of registered producers. In the light of the objections which were made, and in the light of the report from the Commissioner, my right hon. Friend could not be satisfied that a general power of manufacture would, in fact, be conducive to the more efficient operation of the scheme, and he decided that this power should be limited to the manufacture of dried grass. That is how the Amendment will now cause Paragraph 59 of the Scheme to read.
On the other hand, my right hon. Friend was satisfied that the other new powers sought in the same paragraph, and particularly the general powers to provide services, were proper powers for the Board to have, and that is why this provision remains part of the Amendment. I have no doubt that hon. Members will recognise the difference between the two. The services that have been provided in the past more than justify those extra powers being given in the future. When we remember milk recording, transport development, the drying of grass and artificial insemination, which are all part of those services, we see that it augurs well for their development in the future.
The fourth Amendment is also considered to be important, in that it will confer on the Board the power to require producers to sell their milk only to or through the agency of the Board. As hon. Members will know, the main control exercised by the Board over marketing before the war was derived from a

system of contracts to which the Board was a party. The Board was a party to a contract between two other parties. Since 1942 the Board has acted as the sole buyer of milk produced in England and Wales, except that sold by the producer-retailers operating under licence. The Board ceased to become a party to a contract, but it became the sole buyer of the milk produced in this country. Until last year it did so under the control of the Ministry of Food, under the Defence Regulations, and it was proved that very well worth-while economies could be brought about by that sort of development. I am told that something like 2½ million gallons of petrol have been saved by following this system which is now to be made permanent under this Amendment, because the main purpose of this Amendment is to give the Board permanent power to continue in the same way.
The effect of the fifth Amendment is to revise certain provisions of the scheme relating to the Board's obligation to purchase milk. It introduces some changes in the circumstances in which the Board may refuse or cease to purchase milk. I think that the nature of these changes will be apparent in the text itself. Indeed, on pages 11, 12 and 13 they are set out very clearly and in some detail. and I feel that it would take up unnecessary time if I dealt with the matter again when it is already dealt with in words which could not be clearer.
The sixth Amendment relates to the Second Schedule of the scheme in which is specified a list of commodities which the Board is empowered to produce from milk. The effect of the Amendment is to extend the list to include margarine and any other commodities of which milk is a substantial ingredient, except that there is a proviso limiting this power in relation to margarine and the actual content of it. The seventh and last Amendment is what one might describe as a machinery one, concerned only with the renumbering of the paragraphs.
That very briefly is a sketch of the seven Amendments which are before us this evening, and, in commending them to the House, I am certain that hon. Members in all quarters will wish me to pay a tribute to the excellent work that has been done by the Milk Marketing Board over many years and to congratulate it on the effective way in which it has helped


producers in a variety of ways to improve their standards of production and marketing generally. I am reasonably confident that these Amendments will help the Board in its continued efforts to this end, and I am confident that the House will approve them.

8.17 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Champion: I congratulate the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture on his first appearance at the Box to move a major Scheme. As he said, we have heard him at Question Time before, but not at that Box doing the sort of thing that he has had to do tonight. The hon. Member was a very lively back bencher. I sincerely hope that the weight of the Department which he has now entered will not cause him to be any less lively as a Front Bencher, and that he will continue to serve this House well in the task to which he has been called by the Prime Minister. As he rightly said, he started by answering Questions on eggs, and he now moves to milk. He will find that eggs and milk are a very sustaining diet, and I hope that he will stick to eggs and milk.
The hon. Gentleman rightly said that the draft Amendments make a number of fairly substantial amendments to the Milk Marketing Scheme. I think that a number of points have still to be explained to the House, and I propose to ask a few questions about the Scheme. I regard these Amendments as being of considerable importance, and I am particularly interested in the Amendment which gives to the Board the very wide powers that are set out in the new paragraph 59. I should like to know whether the Minister has any idea of the extent to which the Board proposes to use those powers. He himself referred to them as extensive powers. He said they would help the Board in the task which it has in the future, and I would like to know to what extent the Board proposes to use the powers which are now being given to it by this Amendment.
I would like to know to what extent the Treasury will pay for any experiments which the Board will make in connection with the manufacture of commodities from milk. These are very wide powers in paragraph 59, and we ought to know whether it is possible for the Treasury to have to meet the cost

of the experiments which will be conducted under this Amendment to the scheme.
I was particularly interested in the point that the Minister made about the things which the Board sought to manufacture. He told us that as a result of certain objections, the Minister has refused to give the Board some powers for which it asked. I wish he would tell us what were the things which the Board sought to manufacture and what wider powers it sought. Who were the main objectors to the Scheme proposed by the Board and what reasons decided the Minister not to accede to the Board's point of view but rather to accept the objections to the Amendments which the Board had proposed? I hope the Minister will be able to answer those questions, because in view of the importance of paragraph 59 we should be given answers to them.
In paragraph 67, Amendment No. 5, we have an Amendment which gives the Board very great power—the power to refuse to purchase milk. It follows a right given to the Board of the exclusive purchase of milk from registered producers. It seems to me that this is an extremely powerful weapon in the hands of the Board, and we are entitled to ask what are its purposes and in what circumstances the Board visualises using these powers.
I want to ask a specific question: to what extent is it intended by the Board that the powers given in these Amendments are to be used to secure an improvement in the quality of the milk—an improvement which the 1953 Working Party told us was essential? The Working Party set up to consider the quality of milk reported that the quality badly needed bringing up to a very much higher standard than that which it then found. The Report laid special emphasis on the necessity for raising the level of the solids-not-fat—a difficult term but one which means something in this connection. It emphasised the need to bring up the level of solids-not-fat to a very much higher standard than the Working Party found. The Working Party's Report read:
One of the strongest reasons for dissatisfaction with the present level of quality is that the level of solids-not-fat has not been as well maintained as that of fat.


Having said that, the Working Party went on to make a recommendation which is set out in paragraphs 85 and 86 of the Report. I will not read the whole of these two paragraphs, which are available for the Minister and for the Milk Marketing Board, but I wonder to what extent it is intended that the powers which will be vested in the Board by the Scheme will be used to ensure a raising of the level of the quality of our milk, particularly in this feature of solids-not-fat. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us that it is the intention of the Board to have regard to the recommendations of this very important Committee and to use the powers given by this Scheme to that end.
I admit that I have no very great quarrel with the Amendments in the Scheme, but I would point out that the provisions of the Agriculture Act, 1947, have very considerably altered the relationship between the Government and boards of this description. That has been altered as a result of the fact that under the 1947 Act there has been a commitment to guarantee prices to the agricultural community. In this instance of the Milk Marketing Board, the Government are committed under the guaranteed price arrangements to the payment of a sufficient subsidy to bring the price to the producer up to 3s. 1·95d. per gallon.
As I see it, that is a subsidy payment which is likely to continue to increase if the present tendency continues of having to send a larger proportion of the milk produced to the manufacturer. That this is likely to continue is recognised by the Minister, by his Department and, I am sure, by everyone else who knows anything about this problem. For example, paragraph 28 of the 1955 Annual Review says:
The market for liquid milk has declined somewhat since 1951–52 and, although it is hoped that this declining trend has now been brought to a halt, the market is not yet expanding again.
In paragraph 17 of that same Annual Review the Minister points out that there is no evidence at all of a decline in the upward trend of milk production. Put together, those two factors mean that an increasing amount of milk going to the Milk Marketing Board must be sent to the manufacturers, which means, if we are to maintain the price to the producer,

an increase in subsidy. This is a factor which, of course, has tremendously altered the relationship of the Board to the Government and of the Government to the Board. It is recognised by these Amendments, particularly by paragraph 58 (2), which makes provision for the Board to enter into an agreement with the appropriate Minister on matters affecting the price guarantee.
I ask the Minister, is this enough? The 1949 Act made specific provision for altering the composition of the Board. It made a provision which would recognise the new and different relationship between Parliament, the Minister and the boards which are set up under the various Marketing Acts. The 1949 Act enabled the Minister to appoint additional members to such boards in order to safeguard the interests of the consumer and various other interests, including those of the Exchequer.
I do not know whether this could have been done in the draft scheme—I think it might have been possible—but I think the Minister should have considered providing an Amendment which would increase the number of members of the Milk Marketing Board. Paragraph 10 of the White Paper on Decontrol of Food and Marketing of Agricultural Produce, Command 8989, said this of the Milk Marketing Board:
The exercise of these powers must, of course, be subject to necessary safeguards for the Exchequer, the consumer and other interests. Thus, the continuance of an element of consumer subsidy will involve approval by the Government of the level of prices and distributive margins.
The Government have set out to give effect to some part of the promise which they made in the White Paper, but I incline to the point of view that the powers contained in paragraph 58 (1) and (2) are not enough. I think the Minister ought to have taken this opportunity of making an addition to the number of people that he can appoint to such a board so that they might be there safeguarding the interests which I have mentioned—those of the Exchequer, the consumers and certain other interests—in the matter of the sale of milk by this virtual monopoly method, which there is bound to be with a producers' board of this sort.
I would have urged the Minister to appoint the maximum possible number


under the Milk Marketing Act, 1949, and even at this late stage I am inclined to ask the Minister to withdraw the present Scheme and to bring in another which will have regard to the altered relationship between the Minister, the Board, and so on, as a result of the 1949 Act, include all the Amendments which are listed, and have, in addition, a provision to increase the number of the Minister's representatives on the Board so that the essential interests' can be properly safeguarded in the interests of the country.
If the Minister will not do that, we shall not oppose the Scheme, but we ask him to consider these points and, if he will not withdraw the present Scheme, whether an Amendment ought not to be brought forward at a later stage. I hope the Minister will consider these matters. I believe they are essential points. Parliament decided, in its wisdom, to pass the 1949 Act, and it did so realising its implications. I would have hoped that the Minister would at this stage have given effect to this important part of the 1949 Act. If he cannot do so in this Scheme, I ask him to consider the matter and bring forward another Scheme to give effect to the provisions which I have mentioned.

8.32 p.m.

Mr. Sidney Dye: I entirely agreed with one thing that was said by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, and that was his tribute to the Milk Marketing Board for the wonderful work it has done, the great organisation it has built up and the way in which it has improved not only the quantity but also the quality of the milk produced and consumed in this country. These things ought to be acknowledged in all quarters of the House.
I fully appreciate the desire of the Board for further powers to enable it to improve still more the quality of the milk it handles. We have not yet attained a suitable standard, and everything that can be done to that end must be done, even to the extent of rejecting milk which does not come up to the standard. Consequently, I can entirely agree with the new provisions.
There is, however, an aspect of these Amendments which I regret, and that concerns the limitations placed upon the Board with regard to the supply to its producers of a wider variety of feeding

stuffs. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary and his party believe in competition, including competition in supplying the needs of the dairy farming industry. One thing that I have noticed is that the feeding stuffs suppliers' association is rejoicing very greatly at the limitations which have been placed on the Board.
There is danger in the supply of feeding stuffs for dairy cattle becoming almost exclusively in the hands of large firms which are bound together in an association and can thereby fix not merely the standards of the product but also the price. That is what has been happening over the last 12 months. In the case of some of the main ingredients going into dairy cattle feeding stuffs, import prices and home prices have been low, but the price of the final feeding stuffs has risen or remained constant.
There must be something wrong, and it would have been a good thing if the Milk Marketing Board, instead of being confined to drying grass, could have been able to extend its operations so that it could not only use dried grass but could, by buying other cereals and proteins on the world markets and in this country, have been able to produce a balanced diet for the dairy cattle. It could also have supplied the producers of milk with that balanced diet in competition with the big firms which are now binding themselves together in a formidable organisation and are rejoicing that they will not have this kind of competition.
What is the position of Her Majesty's Government? Do they believe in competition in this sphere? If so, why should not they have given this great democratic organisation of producers of milk in this country the chance to break through the kind of monopoly which is being built up, which is charging high prices for feeding stuffs, which is keeping up the cost of milk production? What we want is to bring down the costs of production. What we want is to add to efficient milk production.
Why is it that the Government came down on the side of the objectors in this respect and have not enabled the thing which they proclaimed, namely competition, to play its part? Or have they some other method of breaking up these associations which are fixing prices for the supply of feeding stuffs? Have they something else up their sleeve? Can they


tell us that they are going to allow free market prices to operate?
Just after harvest this year barley and other cereals will be sold at low prices and the corn merchants will be exporting barley to Denmark and to other Continental countries in order to try to get rid of our surplus. Why not enable the Milk Marketing Board to buy at that time the heavily subsidised cereals from our own farms, as well as from the world markets, with a view to bringing in other commodities so that the Board could supply to the dairy farmers a balanced diet for the cattle in the winter months? This is of the utmost importance and, if the Government cannot reconsider this matter now, I hope they will bear it in mind for the future. It would be an advance in co-operation that I, at any rate, would like to see.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) showed concern about the falling off in demand for liquid milk against a tendency to increase the supply. It is all to the good if each cow can be persuaded to produce more milk, because we want to encourage increased production per cow, but this problem has been taken care of. I do not remember any other year when the fall in the number of cows kept for milk has been so great as during the last 12 months. Perhaps my hon. Friend was not in the Chamber when earlier I quoted some figures? The number of cows and heifers in milk is down in the last 12 months by 28,000, so there will have to be a very great increase in the production per cow to make up for the loss of those great numbers.
Then the number of heifers, which would be those coming on for calving and milk production in the following year, is down by 13,000. What is of even greater importance is that the number of heifers under a year old is down by 36,000. It looks, therefore, as if there will be far fewer cows to produce milk, and so we are likely to see not a continual increase in milk for liquid consumption in the next few years but a falling off. That may be to the disadvantage of the country from a health point of view.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Before the hon. Gentleman goes any further, will he tell us the figures before and after the decline in the number of

beasts? Can we have the percentage decline in each category? Then we might understand the question in its proper perspective.

Mr. Dye: I am very sorry if the hon. Member has not studied these problems and these figures before, for he, like me, represents an agricultural constituency, and the Government issued these figures over a month ago. The hon. Gentleman has had access to them. They were issued by the Ministry of Agriculture in a Press notice over a month ago. The hon. Gentleman is showing the lack of interest that he has paid to these matters in the past. I cannot make up for his deficiencies. I have said as much as I want to say about the Scheme, and I leave the hon. Gentleman to look up the figures in the Library which he can do at any time.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman confesses that he cannot support his argument by the full range of statistics that we need to make the argument conclusive. His figures are evidently meaningless without supporting statistics of the figures before the decline and the figures after the decline.

Mr. Dye: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, I would say that if he is unable to work out the percentages himself, I will come and help him at any time.

8.42 p.m.

Mr. H. Nicholls: I should like to thank the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) for the kindly comments he made on my first appearance at the Dispatch Box. I will try to benefit from the food which he said was so beneficial. He asked what the Board wished to manufacture and who were the people who objected. The Board had in mind in their first Amendment a general power to manufacture. There is no specific point in mind that one can relate at this stage. It was a general power to manufacture which covers a very wide front indeed.
The list of objectors consisted of the Agricultural Engineers' Association, the Agricultural Machinery and Tractor Dealers' Association Limited, the British Refrigeration Association, the Compound Animal Feedingstuffs Manufacturers' National Association, the Dairy Appliance Manufacturers and Distributors' Association Limited, the Dairy


Engineers' Association Limited, the Electrical Contractors' Association, Incorporated, the Joint Committee of Concentrate Manufacturers, the Milk Machine Manufacturers' Association, the National Association of Corn and Agricultural Merchants Limited, the National Association of Provender Millers of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the National Federation of Ironmongers, the National Union of Manufacturers and the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders Limited. That is the list of objectors for which the hon. Member asked.
The Minister decided from the evidence given—and he had of course the benefit of the Commissioners' Report—that those full general powers would not be conducive to extra and better efficiency and he decided to modify the Amendment in order to retain the powers only for the manufacture of dried grass.

Mr. Champion: Would the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, having given me that reply which I sought and having acceded to the objections of these people, take care that they do not, by price fixing and so on, bleed the industry, as they might very well do?

Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman can be satisfied that the Government are taking energetic steps to see that, not only in connection with this subject but over the whole range of industry, that does not happen. I am certain that hon. Gentlemen opposite are, as I am, exhilarated by the speed and the effective way in which we have started to deal with that matter in this Parliament.
The hon. Gentleman referred to Amendment No. 5. There is in that a chance of the Board using these powers to get a better quality milk. They can be used. The Board can refuse to take the milk if the milk is of poor quality or the arrangements for production and delivery are unsatisfactory, or if, in the preceding two years, the purchaser has committed, on more than three occasions in any period of 90 days, a serious breach of the terms on which milk is sold. The Board can clearly use these powers to get the better quality to which the hon. Gentleman rightly drew the attention of the House.
The Minister is satisfied that there are circumstances in which the use of the powers would be justified and that the

Board would not penalise producers guilty of trifling infringements. The powers will not be used in any tyrannical fashion. They will be a sanction which ought to be used either for the provision of good quality milk or for improving the general distribution throughout the country.
The point made by the hon. Member about the cost of increasing the amount of milk going for manufacture and bringing about an increase in the subsidy was, in my opinion, exaggerated. There is, of course, always a risk of too geat a proportion of milk going to manufacture instead of to liquid consumption and that the subsidy may rise. But, under an arrangement, the Board has agreed to share this risk and the fears which the hon. Member seemed to express, appear not to be so great as he would have the House believe.
I would say to the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye) that at present the feeding stuffs market gives the appearance of being really competitive; and the fears which he expressed and the extreme words he used are not in accordance with the facts of the situation. If he will provide my right hon. Friend with any information he has to the contrary, I can assure him on behalf of my right hon. Friend that it will be dealt with. I wish to thank hon. Members for their general acceptance of the Amendments. I agree with them that these draft Amendments can only be for the general good of milk production and distribution.

Mr. Champion: Would the hon. Gentleman reply to the point I made about the desirability of adding to the Minister's representation on the Board? I know the difficulties, but I should like to hear his reply. It may be necessary at some time to introduce an Order to do that.

Mr. Nicholls: I remember that the policy put out by the hon. Gentleman's. party in January suggested having a bigger Ministerial representation on the new Board. That would mean increasing the Board and altering the constitution generally. At this stage there is no evidence that the alterations flowing from that would be justified. There is nothing to support the idea of extra representation to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Question, put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Draft Amendments of the Milk Marketing Scheme, 1933, a copy of which Amendments was laid before this House on 5th April, 1955, in the last Parliament, be approved.

CALF SUBSIDIES

8.48 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): I beg to move,
That the Draft Calf Subsidies (England and. Wales and Northern Ireland) (Variation) Scheme, 1955, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th April, 1955, in the last Parliament, be approved.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): It would seem to me that this and the next Scheme deal with the same subject, although with different countries. It may be convenient for the House to discuss them together.

Mr. Nugent: That is agreeable to the Government, and if it is the wish of the House we shall be pleased to follow that course, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
This Scheme is to implement the price settlement at the last Annual Price Review which increased the amount of the calf subsidy from £5 to £7 10s. per bead for calves born after 1st April, 1955. This Scheme now varies the existing Scheme which terminates at the end of October of this year. The House will recollect that the Scheme now running had a life of three years, and was started in 1952. A further Scheme will be laid before the House next October to continue the Calf Subsidy Scheme for another three years.
Under the existing Scheme, the figures for England and Wales and Northern Ireland show that there has been payment for 625,000 steers and 570,000 heifers in the past year at £5 a head, at a total cost of £5,975,000. The response to the existing Scheme has really been most encouraging. In the period June, 1950, to June, 1952, there was a quite serious decline of about a quarter of a million beasts in the number of cattle under one year old, and that, as the House will recollect, at a time when we still had a very stringent meat ration. Therefore, in 1952, we thought that we should be justified in restoring this calf subsidy, and, in the outcome, the response, as I say, really has been very encouraging.
In June, 1952, the United Kingdom figure for steers was 638,000. By June, 1954, it had risen to 825,000, an increase of 187,000 in the annual figure for steers under one year old. The increase in the number of heifers was 82,000. They would, of course, have been almost entirely beef heifers as at the time the milk herd was either stationary or declining. Those two figures give a total of 268,000 beasts under one year old, which was the net increase that we secured for those two years, and I do not doubt that in the past 12 months we have started to eat some of the products.

Mr. E. G. Gooch: At a price.

Mr. Nugent: People can please themselves whether they buy it or not. They can buy frozen beef, which is much cheaper.

Mr. Clifford Kenyon: Is the Minister saying that the 268,000 was an annual increase?

Mr. Nugent: No, this is to-day's figure compared with what it was two years ago.

Mr. Kenyon: In two years, not annually?

Mr. Nugent: Yes, in two years.

Mr. Sidney Dye: In 1954 as against 1952?

Mr. Nugent: Yes.
There are now signs that this increase is slowing up, although we have had considerable benefit from it. Therefore, we now feel that the right thing to do is to increase the subsidy from £5 to £7 10s., and that, accompanied by the increase in cattle prices determined at the last Review will, we hope, give a further impetus to this very desirable increase and will help us to go on increasing the beef herd so that, eventually, we shall be provided with additional supplies of beef.

8.54 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: I propose to make only two very short points about these Schemes—or rather about the Scottish one—because I understand that we are taking both the Scottish and the English Schemes together. As I understand, the Minister's


figures referred to the whole of Great Britain and were a comparison of the year 1954 with the year 1952.

Mr. Nugent: The latter figures were United Kingdom figures and the first figures referred to England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Mr. Grimond: The figure of 268,000 was a total net increase for the United Kingdom and was for 1954 as against 1952.
As the Minister did give the English figure, it would be interesting if we could be told whether there was a uniform increase over the whole country for those two years or whether there was any substantial difference in the corresponding Scottish figure.
The second point is one about which I have asked the Minister before, namely, the effect of this subsidy in Shetland. It is understood that this is a subsidy designed to increase beef cattle, and, naturally, only payable on beef cattle. There has always been some difficulty where we get dual purpose herds. In Shetland we have the Shetland breed of cattle which, to Shetland, is of some importance. There was the danger at one time that owing to this subsidy, or, rather, its predecessor, being payable on beef cattle only, the crofter would tend too much to go in for cross-bred cattle, crossing the Shetland with the Aberdeen-Angus.
I should like, if possible, to hear from the Department, not necessarily now but at some point, its view about this. How far has it gone, and what is the ultimate effect on the Shetland breed going to be? At one time, there was some concern because, as I have said, the Shetland breed is suitable for our climate and conditions. It is very necessary to increase the cattle stock even if the present market, at least in regard to milk, is better than it was a year or so ago. For this purpose it is still desirable to improve and maintain the Shetland breed as well as others.
It may not, therefore, be desirable to see the Shetland breed being gradually diminished at the expense of a crossbreed, or the Aberdeen-Angus. I do not know whether there is any information about the effect of this subsidy in the last three years on the cattle stocks in Shetland, either as regards numbers or quality. If there is, I should like to have it, and

if it is not available now perhaps the Joint Under-Secretary would let me have the information at some future time.

8.57 p.m.

Mr. Clifford Kenyon: Since the introduction of this subsidy—I think it was in 1947—I have opposed it all the way through. I oppose it again tonight. I feel that the results of this subsidy are grossly exaggerated. I believe that the farmer develops his cattle stock, not according to the subsidies which are paid, but according to the final price he receives for the finished animal.
This subsidy has been increased to £7 10s. per calf. As the Minister said, there was an increase in the figures of some 268,000, comparing 1952 with 1954. That was in June. But in December, 1954, there was a reduction in the number of calves. I have not with me the figures for March, 1955, but I understand there is a further reduction. That indicates quite clearly that the high price of the subsidy was not having the effect the Department thought that it would have when it was introduced. It was thought that the increase would be continuous, and I think that it was actually said that it would build up the beef cattle stocks of the country, whereas these stocks are now actually on the decline.
I do not think that the extra £2 10s. per calf will make a difference. Where are we getting with these subsidies? There is the hill cow subsidy, which is related to this calf subsidy. The purpose of the hill cow subsidy of £10 per cow, provided that the calf is suckled, is for the production of the beef calf. We find that at the end of 12 months the actual subsidy paid for the production of one calf is £17 10s.
This is a terrible thing, and there is no justification for it. With beef prices as high as they are today, if that is not a sufficient incentive for the farmer to produce beef cattle, I just do not know where agriculture is going. All the figures, some of which have been given this afternoon. show this decline in the cattle population. Beef prices are so high that anything which has flesh on it, or which is beefy—whether it be a milk cow or a beef cow—is going into the beef market. As a result, we are having a slaughter of dairy cattle that will bring about a reduction in milk production as well as beef production in future.
The Government are now trying to catch up with the result of the introduction of the free market by increasing the calf subsidy to £7 10s. per calf. I do not think they will succeed. The market is the determining factor which will guide the farmer in his decision to produce milk or beef cattle, or to sell the animal in one market or the other. Today, the younger animal is coming into the market. The calf which, hitherto, would have been allowed to run on for two or two and a half years, is now coming into the market at 18 months. We are losing the weight in order to provide a better class of beef. People like the younger beef they like the veal calf, and, as a result, prices for these animals are high and they are coming into the market in excessive quantities.
This attempt to stop the sale of such animals will be abortive, because the calf subsidy is now payable when the calf is between six and nine months of age, and when it reaches the age of 12 or 18 months the farmer is free to put it into the beef market. That is why we are losing the heavier animal that we had hitherto. Moreover, we now need three animals to make up the same weight of two animals previously.
I do not know where we are going with this set-up. To increase the calf subsidy to £7 10s. is an absolute waste of the taxpayers' money. I do not think that the farmers want it. They are content with the final prices, and if the Minister were to appeal to them and tell them exactly what the position is and ask them to increase their stocks, I feel sure that they would do it, irrespective of any subsidy.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. C. N. Thornton-Kemsley: I should have thought the short answer to the questions posed by the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) was that if all the help given were concentrated on the end-product farmers would have to wait a very long time for their money. The great point about giving some part of it in the form of a calf subsidy is that it helps, particularly, the small man—whom we all want to encourage—in the production of as much meat as is possible.
There must be some reason which I cannot appreciate at the moment for

introducing this Scheme now. Otherwise, why is it necessary to introduce the Scheme right in the middle of the calf-rearing season? The Scheme makes an increase of £2 10s. per head, with effect from 1st April. Administratively, there could not be a worse time than now to increase the subsidy, and that is why I think there must be some reason which I cannot appreciate.
We shall not get any more calves out of the Scheme this season. When the Ministry's inspectors have to certify the animals in six or eight months' time for payment they will find that not one calf, if their owners are to be believed, was born before 1st April. No calves will have been born in February or March, but all very early in the month of April. When a calf is six months or eight months old it is not possible for the certifying inspector to say that it was not born in April as against the middle of March. There is no proof. The inspector will have to rely upon the word of the farmer, and it will be one man's word against another's. I doubt whether there will be a single calf born in March, 1955, but there will be a tremendous lot born in April. That is one of the reasons why the Scheme should not have been introduced in the middle of the calf-rearing season.
Another reason for not introducing the Scheme now is that it will encourage late calving. We have been told by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary this evening that the number of calves reared is slowing up. The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye), speaking in the earlier debate, produced figures to show that the number of calves being kept was declining. If that is so, it is not impossible that the subsidy, now being raised to £7 10s., will be raised to £8, £9. or even £10 next season. If the Ministry does this from 1st April this year, breeding programmes will be altered so that calves will not be born before 1st April. and late calving will be encouraged, which is exactly what we do not want.
There must be some reason why this Scheme should be necessary now. I am very much in favour of the increased subsidy. It is right because anything to encourage production of beef from our own fields and hills is to the good. Moreover, a production grant helps the small farmer. Though I am in favour of the


calf subsidy and of the increase, I wish that arrangements could be made to date the increase from 1st October and not from 1st April which, of all the months of the year, is the worst from which to date it.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. Sidney Dye: I rather regretted that the Minister, in introducing this Scheme, could not produce the latest available figures of the numbers of calves at June, 1954. After all, if there has been a change in the tendencies in farming, it is most important that this House should take notice of it, and for that purpose up-to-date figures are most essential.
When the previous Scheme was introduced it was on a temporary basis, for three years, and when subsidies are given on a temporary basis the hope is that they will so encourage production and efficiency in production that they will not be required to be continued. On this occasion, it is not only a question of continuing the subsidy for another three years but of increasing the amount by 50 per cent., and that may be an indication either of the failure of the measure or of our needs and requirements being much greater in the future.
I can understand that point of view. I have some sympathy with the point of view of my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon), and agree that all the work entailed in adminstering these subsidies is expensive. The subsidy itself is a considerable amount, and whether the same aim could not be achieved by other methods I do not know.
The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) has drawn the attention of the House to the easy possibility of abuse in administering this subsidy. Nobody can tell, nine months after its birth, on what date a calf was born. People on farms are bound to forget if it is a question of 1st April as against 1st March. The hon. Gentleman has drawn attention as an ordinary everyday man on the farm to this possibility.
If we can attain our aim without such a subsidy, it is a good thing to do so, but I doubt whether one could argue its necessity on the basis of the cost of rearing the calves against their market value at one year old, for the prices of stores

have been very high indeed and look like getting higher. If the intention is to increase the number of calves reared for future beef supplies, then there is a case for it, but, if that is the case, it seems to me that the Ministers ought to be willing to consider making conditions.
The other day, a farmer pointed out to me that a yard full of bullocks with horns will not do as well and put on as much meat as dehorned or polled cattle. I cannot see why, in giving the subsidy, we should not stipulate the condition that all horned calves should be dehorned at the stage when it is simple, easy and beneficial to do so.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Would not the hon. Gentleman exclude Highland cattle, for example, from that condition? One would hardly dehorn Highland cattle, nor would it be necessary or desirable in any way.

Mr. Dye: I leave the horns of the famous Highland breed to hon. Gentlemen from across the Border, as I would not like to interfere in their affairs. I will assume for the moment that I am only speaking of the Scheme relating to England and Wales.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: The hon. Gentleman would also exclude Ayrshires, I hope?

Mr. Dye: With great respect, an Ayrshire never makes good beef. I should have thought that they were not included in this Scheme.
If, however, in dealing with Highland cattle, we could encourage them to put on more meat without the horns, I should have thought that would be a good thing to try, but, in so far as Shorthorns, Friesians and some others of our famous breeds here in England and Wales are concerned, why does not the Government make this a condition? All those who buy store cattle for fattening agree that it is most desirable, and certainly beneficial.
When I was a Member of Parliament before I raised this matter in relation to one of the early Schemes. I thought then that the Ministry was giving consideration to it, and I should like to have from the Minister a sound reason why there has not yet been agreement. After all, we are not dealing with pedigree bulls or show cattle —there is no need to subsidise them—


and for ordinary beef cattle dehorning is an advantage in every respect. When are we to make this a condition of the grant of the subsidy?
As we are now to increase the subsidy from £5 to £7 10s. per calf and the purpose is to obtain a greater quantity of beef, at what age, or at what weight can these steers be killed and the producer still retain the benefit of the subsidy? My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley has drawn attention to this. We are here giving a subsidy of £7 10s., but the mothers of calves reared on the hill farms also attract a subsidy. The State is, therefore, giving a subsidy equal to £17 for the calf.
Surely we should have a very definite understanding that those calves will not be killed off at 5 or 6 cwt. live weight; otherwise, the nation would not seem to be getting value for its money. While, in the interests of greater quantity and no deterioration in quality, I should be in favour of a minimum of 10 cwt. live weight, I think we should know under what conditions the subsidy is retained if the animals are killed while below a certain weight.
During the past year the encouragement given by the subsidy to the rearing of steer calves has been apparent, but if, because of the attraction of the beef market and of the veal market far greater numbers of heifer calves are being killed off in preference to steer calves there may be something wrong in granting the subsidy. Unless we add to the breeding animals we cannot maintain the numbers in the future. There is the dangerous tendency of the butchers to satisfy the present demand for veal by killing off heifer calves in enormous numbers.
I have stood in Norwich market and seen heifer calves and baby beef of just about 4 cwt. or 5 cwt. live weight being sold in great quantity. If that continues our future supply must be endangered. This free market can, of course, kill the rearing of animals for breeding by drawing off the vast numbers that we see going to market. There are these dangers, and I want to know whether the Minister has anything in mind to deal with this dangerous tendency. We ought to know before we give our assent to this Motion.

9.21 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: The Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that the increase in the number of beef calves that was noticeable between 1952 and 1954 was now slowing up, and he said that that was the reason for the increased subsidy. I wonder whether he will make clear that that was the reason for the subsidy. He will appreciate that there is plenty of evidence to prove that the number is now on the decline instead of increasing at the rate at which it was, and it is doing that at a time when the tillage acreage is falling rapidly. The tillage acreage in the United Kingdom last year fell by nearly 500,000 acres. One would have thought in those circumstances, particularly when there is a plentiful supply of feedingstuffs coming from overseas, that we might have an increase in the number of calves bred and reared in this country.
It does not seem to me that the Parliamentary Secretary made out his case for increasing the subsidy from £5 to £7 10s. In any case, if his only argument is that because the increase in slowing up he must increase the subsidy, all that the farmer has to do is to produce still less and get a larger subsidy. That is the logic of it. As the number of cattle reared declines, so will the subsidy increase. That seems to be a crazy way of administrating public funds in this country.
We were not told what the cost of this subsidy will be. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us what it is. The public have been reading the newspapers today stating that the National Coal Board lost £3.7 million last year, and everyone thinks that is a national catastrophe, but the farmers are to be given much more money by means of this subsidy for this narrow aspect of agriculture.
I am not against introducing a subsidy of this kind if the subsidy can be justified. Indeed, I was a member of the Administration which introduced this measure in 1947. But at that time, and again when the Minister of Agriculture, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Sir T. Dugdale), in 1952 introduced the Measure under which this subsidy is being paid, he said that the subsidy that he was paying was in lieu of an increase in the fixed guaranteed price that would otherwise be paid for the end product. But there is


now no fixed guaranteed price for the end product. I know there is a guaranteed minimum price, which has been increased, but it only begins to operate if the deficiency payment scheme is called into play because the prices realised are not up to the guaranteed minimum price. So there is a difference.
I hope also that the Parliamentary Secretary will deal with the point made by my hon. Friends the Members for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye) and for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) about the slaughter of immature calves after the subsidy has been paid. The Parliamentary Secretary will perhaps recall that we had some criticism to make of this matter a year or two ago. His right hon. Friend, the then Minister, resisted Amendments to the Bill which we put down to deal with this problem, using the argument that it was unnecessary to put any further protection into the Bill because he had an arrangement with the Minister of Food to deduct from the amount he was called upon to pay to the person who submitted an immature animal for slaughter the total amount of the subsidy paid in respect of the calf.
Thus, the producer could not profit from the subsidy and then have the animal prematurely slaughtered. Could we have some explanation of the present arrangements now that the Minister of Food no longer exists and the Minister of Agriculture has taken over his responsibilities in England and Wales and those of the Secretary of State in Scotland? Are there no arrangements under which they can deduct the subsidy from the end price, for that method was the only justification which the Minister had three years ago for not accepting some of the suggestions made from this side of the House?
What steps are the Government taking to save us from the premature slaughter of animals after the payment of a very generous subsidy? The mother cow on the hill brings the farmer a subsidy of £10, and there is a further subsidy here of £7 10s. After all, the subsidy for the mother cow on the hill is given only because she will keep a calf. It would be monstrous if we were to learn that great numbers of the calves are being slaughtered prematurely after a subsidy of £17 10s. has been paid from public funds for having a calf produced in the hope

that one day, when a full-grown animal, it would provide 10 to 12 cwt. of beef.
I want to support what was said by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley), who criticised the adoption of the date 1st April. When it was first decided to allow the calves to be marked at the age of six months with a view to ensuring that the subsidy would go to the breeder, I called attention to the fact that particularly in Scotland—and I cannot speak for elsewhere—most of the calves are born in February, March and April, but that in some districts they are born as late as May; and that the calf is sold at the autumn sales which take place, I said, within six months of it being born. In other words, the calf was sold when it was less than six months old. It would normally be sold from those farms before it could be earmarked and could qualify for the subsidy.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland at that time, Mr. McNair Snadden, said that most of the calves in Scotland were born in February and March and some in April. He hoped that most of them would be six months old before the autumn sales and would qualify for the subsidy. The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns is quite right in thinking that there will be a heavy crop of calves in Scotland this year born in April and very few born in March. I am very glad he said that, because when I said something like it on an earlier occasion I was accused of making an unfair attack upon the farmers of Scotland. Of course we shall find at the end of the day that a very great many calves have been born in Scotland this year in April, because a calf is worth £2 10s. more if born in April than if born in March. It will, of course, be less than six months old by the time the autumn sales come round, and it will qualify for the higher subsidy.
It was rather silly to select a date right in the middle of the season when calves are being born. An hon. Friend reminds me that the English farmers would never have thought of ensuring that the calves were born in April. No doubt they will read HANSARD and will see that the calves must be born in April this year and not in February or March in order to be worth £2 10s. more. Can we be told why it was necessary to choose 1st April as the date? Would it not have


been simpler to have taken an earlier date or to have left out this provision altogether for this year and to have provided for the increased subsidy, if that was thought necessary, when we got the new scheme which we must have by October if these proposals are to be continued? I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us, among other things, what the additional subsidy will cost.

9.31 p.m.

Mr. Nugent: The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) asked me whether the increase had been fairly uniform. The increase for Scotland was 67,000. I cannot tell him the exact proportion of that to the total, but I think that, broadly, there has been a fairly uniform increase throughout the United Kingdom.
In reply to his point about cross-breeding for beef, our general advice would be that cross-breeding is a very sound and proper practice for producing an animal to eat but not for producing an animal from which to breed in the future. If, as I understand him, there is a tendency to keep the cross-bred heifers and take them into the herds, I think that that is probably a mistake. However, one of the Joint Under-Secretaries of State for Scotland will look into the matter and will also supply the hon. Member the other figures for which he asked.
The hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) returned to the fray again, as expected him to do. I recollect his resistance to our proposals three years ago. The arguments are still the same. I believe—and I think a good many other people believe—that the calf subsidy has a particular appeal to the smaller farmer. It undoubtedly has a far more complete effect in increasing the number of calves than would an increase in the price of the end product. The greater part of a £5 subsidy on a calf paid at the age of eight months, the normal age, will be reflected back to the calf when it is sold at about three weeks old; not the whole of it but a large part of it, and a far greater proportion than an addition to the end price. It also means that the payment comes early in the process of producing beef, at eight months old.
I believe that the figures which I have been able to give tonight fortify my argument about the subsidy in that it brought about a very valuable increase, Prior to the subsidy, there had been a decrease. Therefore, I think that the subsidy has justified itself.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. ThorntonKemsley), I am glad to say, supported me with regard to the value of the calf subsidy, and I welcome his support, bat he was critical about our choosing 1st April as the date. The reason for it is that the so-called livestock year for the purposes of the Annual Review is from 1st April to 31st March. Therefore, whatever changes there are in livestock prices, whether they are concerned with cattle, sheep, milk, eggs or anything else, all take place from 1st April.

Mr. T. Fraser: Surely that date is irrelevant for a subsidy that will not be paid until some time in the autumn. To take 1st April as the beginning of the livestock year is important from the point of view of determining the price of meat, eggs or milk starting from then and being continuous, but in this matter we are merely looking to the birthday of the animal which is to have the subsidy paid when it is six, eight or nine months old.

Mr. Nugent: Yes, but that is not the only consideration. I understand the argument, but here we are primarily concerned with the calf that comes from the dairy herd. Instead of that being knocked on the head at three weeks old or perhaps even three days old as a bobby calf, we want the rearable calves, which are the by-products of the dairy herd, to be reared. That is where the greater part of our increases comes from.
We chose this date because it was the beginning of the livestock year and for that class of calf it was just as suitable as any other date, and it had the logic that it was the beginning of the livestock year. I accept the argument with regard to the beef herds, that it may not be an altogether convenient date, but, looking at the whole picture of calf rearing, it was the most appropriate date to take.
A point was put to me about dehorning by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye). My right hon. Friend was asked a question about that two months ago and told the House then that the National Cattle Breeders'


Association had seen some difficulty in dehorning. No doubt they had in mind the problem of Highland cattle. At that time my right hon. Friend decided that he would defer a decision and discussions are continuing. However, my right hon. Friend said, and I am glad to associate myself with it, that we agree that the practice of dehorning is sensible, especially with cattle that are to be yarded.

Mr. Dye: Do I understand that it would be possible, if the Government make up their mind to do it, to amend this Scheme before the expiry of three years?

Mr. Nugent: No, this Scheme extends only until the end of the life of the existing Scheme, that is, until 29th October. The Government will then have to bring another Scheme before the House to give a three year renewal, so that there will be time, if conditions are appropriate, to reconsider this matter then.
With regard to the complaint of the hon. Gentleman that we have not more recent figures, I have the figures of the March returns for England and Wales. These show that in the yearling category the males increased by 70,000, that is, 15 per cent., and females by 56,000, that is, 6 per cent. However, that is still a slowing up of the total increase although those figures showed that the increase was continuing.
On the general point of the hon. Gentleman of doubt as to whether we would secure a further increase by increasing the subsidy now by 50 per cent., also the point made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser), that is simply a matter of judgment. We think that it will do so. We think that the £5 subsidy which we brought in three years ago has fully justified itself and we believe that this additional encouragement will cause the increase to continue.
The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West and the hon. Member for Hamilton asked about the age of slaughtering. It is true that my right hon. Friend, when introducing the Agriculture (Calf Subsidies) Bill, 1952, undertook that we would not accept for slaughter animals that were immature which had received a subsidy. Of course, at that time the Ministry of Food was purchasing and so we were able to carry out that under-

taking. When the Ministry of Food ceased to purchase last year, we were no longer able to keep control of the situation.
There are two points that I should put into the mind of the hon. Gentleman. The first is that these calves at the age at which they are certified, namely, eight months—six months is the special dispensation only for the hill cattle—would be far past the veal stage, so that there is no question of them going for veal at that age. There is a possibility, if they are in good condition, that they may go as baby beef, but that is unlikely. The greater probability is that they will go at two years old, which is the main preference of the market now. Our view is that, apart from any administrative difficulty, it should be left to the farmer to decide at what age he thinks it best to market the animals in order to meet consumer choice. In that way we shall get the increase that we are trying to promote.

Mr. T. Fraser: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that his right hon. Friend at that time appreciated that these calves were being sold as baby beef and that is why he made the arrangement with the Minister of Food? The Minister said that to do what was being done—to collect the subsidy and then to sell these calves as baby beef—was an abuse of the Scheme. Those were the Minister's words. He said that it was an abuse that would not be tolerated. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary is saying that the producers cannot be trusted and that this abuse will be tolerated.

Mr. Nugent: I do not think that in conditions of a free market I would call it an abuse. This Scheme is to encourage the production of beef. If there is a consumer demand for baby beef it is our business to meet it.

Mr. Fraser: At the expense of the taxpayer?

Mr. Nugent: The hon. Member's mind is stuck in the time of shortages. We have ended meat rationing. Now there is enough and people can buy what they want. The farmer's job is not only to produce quantity but also to produce the quality that is wanted.

Mr. Fraser: Why the subsidy?

Mr. Nugent: The subsidy is to stimulate production, in exactly the same way as the price guarantees.

Mr. Fraser: A free economy.

Mr. Nugent: A free economy, certainly, but we want certain price guarantees and encouragement of this kind in order to go on increasing the volume. I will certainly not agree that it is desirable to continue restrictions that were suitable to a time of shortage.

Mr. Fraser: Nobody said that.

Mr. Nugent: That is what the hon. Gentleman is asking me to do.

Mr. Fraser: No. May I intervene?

Mr. Nugent: Certainly, if the hon. Gentleman is prepared to explain himself.

Mr. Fraser: I am quite prepared to explain myself. I am not asking for any improper restrictions at all. The whole justification for the legislation that makes provision for this scheme being brought before Parliament was that it was desirable to subsidise the rearing of calves that would be grown on to three or four years old before being slaughtered. That was the whole argument in favour of the subsidy, and the Minister who piloted the Bill through Parliament said that to collect a subsidy and then to sell an animal as baby beef before it was one year old would be an abuse of the Scheme. If it would be an abuse of the Scheme in 1952, I say that it would be an abuse of the Scheme in 1955.
I ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to appreciate that we are not asking for any unnecessary restrictions. We are not talking about returning to the ration book or anything of the kind. We are asking for a proper safeguard over the expenditure of public funds, and that is all.

Mr. Nugent: The hon. Gentleman has now made another speech. Let me reply to him that I do not agree that this is an abuse of the Scheme. The point that I have made to the hon. Gentleman is that we are not today in a condition of shortage where we have the rationing of meat. We have ended rationing.

Mr. Dye: Why have a subsidy then?

Mr. Nugent: In these circumstances, I do not consider that it is an abuse of the Scheme if farmers sell animals at a

younger age to meet a specific consumer demand. Part of the business of supplying the nation's food is not only to give the volume of food required, but also to meet consumer choice—something the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) seems to have forgotten altogether. Our view is that farmers should be free to decide, free to use their own judgment about what they will do. I certainly will not accept from the hon. Gentleman that in the conditions of today that is an abuse.

Mr. Fraser: The hon. Gentleman should read again what he said in 1952.

Mr. Nugent: Three years ago, when we had a stringent shortage of meat and a small meat ration, it was a different consideration altogether whether the animal should be grown on to a maximum weight—

Mr. Dye: Why keep the subsidy?

Mr. Nugent: Because we want to increase beef production. We have already succeeded in increasing meat supplies and rationing has ended. We want to go on to increase meat supplies even further. If hon. Members opposite cannot understand that simple reasoning, it just shows that their minds are stuck in the time of shortage and that they cannot get away from it.

Mr. Thomas Steele: We object to the waste of public money.

Mr. Nugent: Well, the hon. Member can go outside, if he likes, and tell the country that the meat supplies which we have had in the past year have been a waste of public money. But if he does he will not get many people to sympathise or agree with him. The fact is that the country is very well satisfied—as has been shown—with the meat supplies which we have been able to secure. If the hon. Gentleman likes to go out and try that one, I wish him luck.

Mr. Dye: I raised a point which I should like the hon. Gentleman to answer. It will be remembered that in April a subsidy of 5s. per live cwt. was paid in the form of a deficiency payment in respect of beef cattle accepted at the auction markets. I wish to be clear about what age in the future, at what limiting weight, will the deficiency payment be paid on beef cattle accepted at the auction markets? Will it be at 7 cwt., or


at 10 cwt. or at what figure, or is it to be unlimited, and the deficiency payment paid in addition to this subsidy for cattle?

Mr. Nugent: I think I answered that when I said that we do not consider that restrictions are desirable in this respect now. I ask the House to give approval to this Scheme.

Mr. T. Fraser: Will the Joint Parliamentary Secretary tell us what it will cost? This question is normally answered by the Minister in asking the House to agree to such a Scheme as this. What will it cost the taxpayer?

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Draft Calf Subsidies (England and Wales and Northern Ireland) (Variation) Scheme, 1955, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th April, 1955, in the last Parliament, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Draft Calf Subsidies (Scotland) (Variation) Scheme, 1955, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th April, 1955, in the last Parliament, be approved.—[Mr. N. Macpherson.]

CEREALS (DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS)

9.48 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): I beg to move,
That the Cereals (Deficiency Payments) Order, 1955, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th April, 1955, in the last Parliament, be approved.
This Order is made under Section 4 of the 1947 Agriculture Act. It is similar to the Order brought before the House last March for livestock. By making this Order under the 1947 Act, we are taking a further step in the changeover from war-time to peace-time arrangements, so that we shall then be implementing the agriculture price guarantees under the 1947 Act and, at the same time, giving this House a chance to see these arrangements and to debate them.
Prior to July, 1953, the grain trade, both home produced and imported, was controlled entirely by the Ministry of Food. As the House will recollect, there was this comprehensive system of foodstuff rationing and control of the millers' grist, merchants' mixtures, margins, etc. In July, 1953, State trading ended, rationing, allocation and controls ended, but

we continued with the Ministry of Food trading as a support buyer to implement the price guarantees for a period of 12 months. That arrangement ended at the end of June, 1954, and since July, 1954, the price guarantees have been implemented under a system of deficiency payments and the Ministry of Food has had no further part in trading. This is the system which will be carried on under the Order now before the House.
During the past 11 months, this deficiency payment system has worked well to implement the assurance of price and markets for our farmers and, at the same time, to allow the free market to operate to the benefit of our housewives as consumers and to the benefit of farmers also as consumers and as purchasers of feedingstuffs for livestock production. The general principle of the guarantee is the deficiency payment which makes up the difference between the average market price level and the price guaranteed at the Price Review of the previous year.
In the case of wheat, the arrangement is to pay the deficiency payment on a tonnage basis, and we estimate that for the 12 months ending at the end of this month the cost of that guarantee in respect of wheat will be some £22 million. For barley and oats, the deficiency payment works on an acreage basis, operating again on the difference between the average market price and the guaranteed price and then related to the average production per acre of the country.
The cost of these two items is estimated to be £8·8 million for barley and nil for oats. That is the broad picture of the system as it has worked during the past 12 months. It has worked satisfactorily and smoothly, and I ask the House to give its approval to this Order.

9.52 p.m.

Mr. George Brown: The Parliamentary Secretary is undoubtedly having to earn his corn tonight, and he has all my sympathy in doing so. He is defending a number of sticky wickets, and doing it, I suppose, as well as can be expected, though not particularly satisfactorily from the point of view of hon. Members on this side of the House or of the taxpayer.
I am sorry to have to press the hon. Gentleman rather hard on the last wicket which he has to defend. I cannot understand why the Minister is not here. These


Statutory Instruments, and particularly the one which we are now discussing, are of very considerable importance indeed. This Order involves a considerable sum of the taxpayers' money. It raises large issues of principle, which, let me tell hon. Gentlemen opposite, are worrying all sorts of people who are not Labour Party supporters in the countryside and in the towns. I must say that I think it is treating the House with a little less than the courtesy which it deserves for the Minister to go completely away and to leave his Parliamentary Secretary to handle the whole lot.
In view of the argument which the Parliamentary Secretary has just deployed, let me make it quite clear that in raising considerable criticisms on these Statutory Instruments we are not arguing that the country has only a choice between times of restriction, shortage and control and times of unlimited dipping into the public purse by vested interests. We do not believe that to be the choice before the country.
The trouble with hon. Gentlemen opposite is that they are so doctrinaire on these issues that they cannot see that because we no longer have shortages, restrictions and controls it does not mean that we ought to be pouring out of our pockets as taxpayers' unlimited sums of money over which we have no control at all. It is no use saying, "Oh, well, you know that a month or two ago the electors decided that it was all right." They were not so happy about it in Guildford where the election result was notably worse than in almost every other Conservative seat in the country.
They were not so awfully satisfied about it in Norfolk, South-West where the result of considerable interventions both by the Minister and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary was to bring my hon. Friend back here at the expense of their own former Member. They were not so satisfied in Norfolk, North, where the considerable attempt made by the Minister and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to explain this off to the electors resulted in my hon. Friend being here with a majority foul times as great. The argument that they were all satisfied wish it does not seem to apply where the Minister takes the trouble to explain it. Perhaps one of the reasons they are so coy about explaining it tonight is that

it would have had much the same effect on everyone here.
I regard the system of paying deficiency payments on cereals, as it has worked out this last year, to be almost the granddaddy and grandmother of all the swindles that have ever been perpetrated. It is not the case of guaranteeing farmers; it is not the case of the taxpayer being asked to stand behind the farmers. This is a straightforward subsidy for Mr. Rank and Mr. Spiller and their friends in that industry. This is the millers' featherbedding, and it is doing it extremely well.
I beg Conservative Members not to rush straight into this just because their Government are putting it forward. It is not a countryside issue. It is an issue for the taxpayer and consumer in the rural areas. Let me say what I have said many times in this House, that those who sit for farming constituencies, as I do, know that in the end we shall maintain the policy of guaranteeing and supporting our agricultural industry only if we can persuade the urban population that it is reasonable and proper so to do. This, therefore, is an important issue.
The Minister has just said that in the last 12 months it has cost about £30 million by way of deficiency payments to support the producers' prices. At the Press conference which the Minister's right hon. Friend gave after the Annual Price Review for this year, he estimated that for the coming year the cost would be about £46 million. So there is to be on the estimate of the Minister, if it works out at about right, 50 per cent. increase in the direct cost to the taxpayer of supporting the producers' prices through deficiency payments. So much for the allegation that the Conservative Party can do this so much cheaper than we were doing it.
Why are we paying deficiency payments for cereals? We are doing it, we are told, because it is right and proper to encourage the home cereal producer to produce more grain. That, I take it, is the Conservative argument for it, as it is our argument for it. But what are we doing at the same time? This Government, in giving away with the right hand, do not know what the left hand is doing. At the very moment when we are paying 50 per cent. more for supporting the home producers we are importing far more than we ever did before.
At the very moment—perhaps the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will take his attention off my election return and pay attention to these figures, which are more germane at the moment; I can tell him that the swing against me was rather less than half what it was in the rest of the country—that we had put up by 50 per cent. the cost of supporting the home producer, we had put up the amount of grain imported from overseas by 50 per cent.
In the first four months of this year we spent £64½ million, I am told, on importations from overseas of cereals and cereal preparations. In the same period of last year, we spent £40 million. So, in 12 months, the result of paying out a lot more to encourage our own producers is that we spent on overseas imports another £24 million of our scarce currency. If we look at the volume of the imports and take 1950 as 100, we find that in the first quarter of last year the figure was 96 and in the first quarter of this year it was 153.
You have some experience of these matters, Mr. Speaker. Can you really believe that it is sensible to pay out extra money to encourage the home producer to grow more and then spend another £25 million in importing another 50 per cent. of the very same thing from overseas? This is the result of the so-called free market. It is sheer anarchy. The Government are trying to run a free market for the miller and the importer, with a controlled and subsidised market for the producer. We believe that that makes nonsense of the whole thing and that the House should give its attention to the matter.
If we want to do the one, somehow the other has to be stopped. If they do not want to interfere with the freedom of the miller and the importer, the Government must look again at their idea of encouraging the home producer. What happens now? When the miller and the importer are free to buy these much larger quantities from overseas, the price they are prepared to pay to the home producer collapses. The result is that the amount we pay out by way of subsidy goes up, not because the farmer needs any greater guarantees; not because he is any less efficient; not because he is doing his job any the worse, but because Mr. Rank, Mr. Spiller and the rest of them say,

"Thank you very much. We have already filled up our silos with overseas supplies. We are not going to pay you the price which the Government say is the right one."
Since the last harvest the average deficiency payment has fluctuated between £8 and £10 per ton. When I raised this question before, I was told that that price applied only to the men who did not do their job properly—the men who produced their grain and sold it with a lot of moisture in it, immediately after the harvest. The Government wanted farmers to dry it and store it. Does that make any difference?
Immediately after the harvest, which was a wet one last year, a subsidy of about £9 per ton was being paid. A little later it had risen to over £10 per ton. At the back end of the year—November and December—the subsidy dropped to £8. If the Parliamentary Secretary's argument were right, as we went on and began bringing in grain from farmers who had dried and stored it, the price should have risen and the subsidy dropped, but it did nothing of the sort. In January and February the people who had done what they had been asked to do were selling, but the deficiency payment had jumped up to £10 per ton again. In fact, it was almost as high as the highest point reached just after the harvest. Even for the last two-monthly period for which we have figures it was still running at over £9 per ton.
This price has nothing to do with the quality of English grain, or the extent to which the farmer has done his job properly. It is a wangled price—wangled by the millers and importers, simply because they were set free to spend our currency upon overseas imports first of all. Every farmer knows about this and is grumbling about it. What does the Parliamentary Secretary say in defence of this system, in which a farmer sells his wheat for £8, £9 or £10 per ton less than the alleged guaranteed price and then, at a later stage, when he wants to buy back the wheat offals for feedingstuffs, buys them back at a price higher than that which he originally received for the whole wheat?
This criticism has nothing to do with our being Socialists; this is the kind of criticism which cannot be laughed off by the Government saying, "We won the Election," or, "You want to go back to


the ration book." This is the kind of issue which the High Court of Parliament is here to prevent. It is a matter of the defence of the public purse; the defence of the taxpayer—and the trouble with this Government is that they are not willing to organise that defence. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary would have felt very strongly about this matter the day before he joined the Ministry, but I doubt whether we shall hear from him tonight. If he likes to talk, we shall be delighted to hear him, in the light of what he used to say about this matter.
An outrageous scandal is operating. I ask the Minister to reply on this matter. He is entitled to say, "We are the Government. We have our way to do it and you have your way to do it," but what steps is he taking to prevent this scandal happening next year? Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary has exhausted his right to speak, but we should be delighted to facilitate his speaking again. Anyway, there are other Ministers whose names are attached to this Order. There are the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for the Home Department. We should be delighted to hear from either of them the steps they are taking to stop this scandal—for it is nothing else—from continuing from now onwards.
If we look at the balance sheets of the people concerned, we can see what is happening. The Parliamentary Secretary said that this scheme was working well—I took his words down—for the benefit of the housewife and of the farmer, but it is not benefiting the housewife. She gets nothing any cheaper as a result of this scheme. The bread subsidy is still there. That has not come down as a result, and there is no other way in which the scheme benefits the housewife. It has not benefited the farmer. It is true that the miller, when he is doing the farmer down, says, "You don't have to worry because the Government will make this up. Leave it alone, and if I pay you £10 less than I ought the Government will make it up to you."
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary laughs, but he knows that that is said in every market and to every farmer. The farmer knows that it cannot go on at this rate. The Minister found it difficult to make an agreement at the price review this year, so the Prime Minister came

along and said, "We are going to have an Election in the next few months, so let US fix it up." [An HON. MEMBER: "It was the Chancellor of the Exchequer."] I mean the Prime Minister, who intervened at the very end. There was a succession of interventions, I understand.
Next year there will be no Election in the offing, and the farmer knows that this scandal cannot go on, because it will not be stood for. That is what is worrying him. The scheme is not for his benefit. I very quickly looked up the figures for Messrs. Spillers and Messrs. Ranks, and I found that in 1953 Ranks made £4,850,000 gross profit. In 1954 their gross profit had risen to £6,409,000, an increase of £l½ million in two years. That is where the money is going. It is for them that we are voting the subsidy. Messrs. Spiller, in 1953, made £3,050,000. In 1954 they made almost £4 million, and in 1955 £4½ million, again an increase of about £11 million. That is where the subsidy is going. In dividends, Spillers made provision for £240,000 in 1953, for £321,000 in 1954, and for £428,000 in 1955, an increase of very nearly £200,000 in the three years, in dividends paid out. Messrs. Ranks paid dividends of about the same order.
That is where the money is going; that is what this system is doing. Of course, it is not producing the food. Look at the March returns of grain acreage. The wheat acreage is going down from 2,377,000 to the 1,949,000 forecast for this year. The barley acreage went up by a very small amount and oats acreage by a very tiny amount. Mixed corn is down, and we have a lower production in rye. All this is discouraging to the home producer, who cannot understand why he does not get paid the price that his crop demands. He realises that it is costing too much money for very little return. We are getting lower production. It is no use blaming the weather last year. When there was a bad winter under the Labour Government it was somehow our fault, but when we have bad weather now it is just bad luck. There was a drop in the tillage acreage of 400,000 last year before the bad summer began. That is what is shown here in these figures.
This is a public scandal. This is no part of an agricultural policy. The system of guaranteed prices is the only one that the National Farmers' Union


has repeatedly said will result in increased production, with some control over expenditure from the public purse. I say that the Parliamentary Secretary must do more than he has so far been doing and show how this system is better than ours. He must defend the extravagant waste of public money here, and also defend the enormous increase in millers' and importers' profits and dividends. He must show us that under his system he can take some steps to stop this happening in the future. In my belief, he cannot do it, and that is what he has so singularly failed even to attempt to do.

10.11 p.m.

Mr. David Renton: The right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) has spoiled, as he very often does, a strongly arguable case by overstating it. Some of the extravagant adjectives which he used were quite inappropriate to the subject and do not help any body at all.
Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman produced some facts of which everybody in the House should take notice. It is a fact that there has been a tremendously increased import of wheat into this country this year, especially, I understand, of French wheat. I wonder whether the Government spokesman will tell the House whether French wheat is being sold in this country at prices below the cost of production. If, as I am informed, it is being sold at such prices that would seem to me to be dumping, and I should like to know whether it is that sort of dumping which, we were promised in the Gracious Speech, will be prevented in future by stern measures. I certainly hope that it will be.
Further, for the French merely to export their surplus wheat, knowing that it will be exported and sold below the cost of production, would appear to me to be an unfair trading practice within the meaning of our Election manifesto "United for Peace and Progress," and I should be grateful if I could be told whether it is technically regarded by the Government as an unfair trading practice.
I differ from the right hon. Member for Belper to this extent. I do not think that our farmers, certainly this year or next year, have anything to worry about because of the very deficiency payments

which we are discussing under this Order. But, of course, there is a further factor to take into account. It is one thing to sell their wheat and get a price for it, knowing that they will receive a deficiency payment, but it is another thing not to be able to sell their wheat at all. There have been moments, fortunately only short, but, nevertheless, anxious moments, in recent months when farmers have doubted whether they will sell their wheat.

Mr. E. G. Gooch: That is under a Tory Government.

Mr. Renton: This is a matter in which, if I may say so, the House will do much better not to adopt party points or doctrinaire tactics. I am trying to look at this matter as objectively as I possibly can.
Another thing which should not be lost sight of is that, although the longer a farmer holds his wheat the better price he gets, under the graduated payments scheme there is, generally speaking, some wastage. More serious still is the possibility that with a pile-up such as has revealed itself in recent weeks not all wheat may be disposed of before the end of the deficiency periods. Can the Government give an assurance that all wheat being offered is likely to be cleared out of farm stores and off the farms before the next harvest is ready? I have even heard farmers express some anxiety about that.
May I conclude with a very little personal reminiscence? I became a National Liberal in 1932 because I considered that the Conservative Party had the right ideas about protecting our own growers from dumping. So far, I have never regretted that step. I hope that the Government reply to this debate will show that I have no cause to regret it this year.

10.16 p.m.

Mr. M. Philips Price: The Parliamentary Secretary has told us that the amount of wheat deficiency payments this year will be about £20 million, and neither the country nor this House can be indifferent to that, especially if the amount is to increase. I am sure that no Chancellor of the Exchequer can be indifferent to such a serious deficiency payment, which shows signs of increasing rather than the reverse.
Can we continue indefinitely with it without some limitation on wheat acreage? In, I think, 1931, following a General Eection in that year, a Wheat Act was passed by the National Government which gave a deficiency payment but limited the acreage. If the acreage was exceeded the deficiency payment began to decrease. Perhaps we shall have to face a similar situation.
Another consideration, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) has pointed out, is that the price of wheat at this time of year—when we thought it would be much higher—is only in the neighbourhood of 21s. a cwt. I sold some about a fortnight or three weeks ago at 21s. 9d. Having held it over from last harvest, having dried it and stored it, I thought I should get about 30s. now, but not at all—I got 21s. 9d. I suppose I shall get a deficiency payment of about 10s. a cwt., but it makes one wonder whether the millers are not getting the wheat too cheaply and whether some of this money is not really going into their pockets.
The farmer is all right, he is paid partly by the miller and partly by the deficiency payment, but the taxpayer has to pay and I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer can remain indifferent indefinitely to this widening gap.
The hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Renton) has spoken about the dumping of wheat from France and I have heard much the same. One wonders very much whether the Government will not have to work out a method by means of which the millers do not get away with more than they should.
We must have cheap supplies for the consuming side of agriculture, namely, pigs, poultry and livestock generally. Cheap feeding stuffs are essential. I very much agree with the deficiency payments for barley and oats on the acreage basis as it is, and I see nothing to grumble at or worry about there, because this encourages fodder crops which are the basis of our livestock industry.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Belper referred to the drop in the acreage of arable land. That does not worry me particularly, because I think what is happening is that our farmers are more and more going over to ley farming. I know

of farms on the Green Belt to the north of London, and there are many others elsewhere today, with pasture lands which were inferior and where no more than a ton of hay to the acre could be produced. Now there are two or three year leys producing 2½ tons to the acre with the aid of the new methods of artificial manuring.
That means that the figure for tillage may go down, but it does mean that the figure for silage and hay production per acre goes up. It seems that one need not worry unduly at the drop in arable acreage, provided there is an increase in respect of the other crops to which I have referred.
I should like to know what is happening to the very large wheat crop that has been grown in this country and also imported from abroad. It must amount to an enormous figure. British wheat goes mainly into biscuits and pig and poultry food. It is not so good for bread making, as we know. I should like to know whether it is really true that there is such a demand for pig and poultry food and biscuits, that we can absorb this tremendous crop which is not only grown but also imported. The whole thing is rather a mystery, and I would like the Government to clear it up.
As I have said, I do not altogether like this suspicion that the millers are paying this low price at this time of year, when I should have thought they would have been paying more, which means that the Government subsidy and the taxpayers' contribution have to increase. That seems to be wrong, and I wish the Government would look into this matter because I am certain that in the long run the taxpayers will not stand for it. After all, we are mainly an urban country, with a large industrial population, and although we have long since, I hope, given up the idea that agriculture should be left to find its own level I think there are limits and I wish that the Government would look into this matter.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. Sidney Dye: I do not know whether I ought to offer an apology to the House for addressing it four times today, but I have, of course, lost time to make up, and these are matters of very great importance to agriculture.
I want to deal with some very serious deficiencies in this scheme as part of the agricultural policy for the country. The Parliamentary Secretary came to Norfolk on a number of occasions during the General Election.

Mr. Gooch: And stayed a long while, too.

Mr. Dye: One of the points which the Conservative Party plugged was the amount of subsidies which the Government were giving to agriculture. I thought that that was a bad line. I have never thought that any political party ought to appeal to the agricultural community on the basis of the amount of money it was taking from the taxpayers and giving to one section of the community. It was a shocking thing for people to come to the country districts to do after they had had experience in this House. Nevertheless, hon. Members opposite did it.
The result of their policy is that the amount of subsidies has gone up, but the amount of those subsidies remaining with the farmers has fallen. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) has pointed out, a large part of those subsidies, described as subsidies for agriculture, go to support the industries and interests which handle our produce after it has left the farms. That is a great weakness in the present method of subsidising.
Let me tell the House what hon. Members opposite did to bolster their approach to the electorate on this subject. As a farmer, I received a cheque for £70 two days before the Election. I suppose thousands of other farmers received their wheat subsidy payments on 23rd or 24th May. [HON. MEMBERS: "Was it calculated?"] I would not suggest that it was calculated. It was coincidence or something else.
Another subsidy was on beef. For the cattle marketed in April the subsidy was 5s. a cwt. and for those marketed in May it was 3s. 6d.—but the prices of those cattle were far above the guaranteed prices. How was it that for the period just before the Election subsidies were paid although the market price far exceeded the guaranteed price? Just an accident? Or was it calculated? If so, on what basis?
I do not think we shall ever have a sound policy for British agriculture on the basis of trying to bribe the electorate. That is the very weak position in which the Conservative Party have placed themselves. If, to obtain agricultural support in 1955, they have to bolster up a system where the total subsidies are running at the rate of over £250 million a year, what will the rate of subsidy have to be at the next Election? Will it be £400 million, £500 million, or what will it be?
The way in which this subsidy works is unfair. The hon. and learned Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton), who is no longer in his place, raised the question of the price of wheat and argued that those who kept their wheat the longest could get a better price. However, when we take into account the deficiency payment and the market price, the farmers who sold their wheat in May and June will receive a lower amount than those who sold their wheat in January and February, because the price was then running at 25s. or 26s. per cwt. whereas it is now down to 21s. per cwt.
How is the average price for barley calculated? I am informed by those who are in the trade that four-fifths of the barley produced in the eastern counties is marketed before Christmas. We know from experience during the last season that it was then sold on the market at a very low price. After Christmas the price rose rapidly. Was the barley that was sold in February direct from the growers or had it been bought by merchants earlier and then sold on the market at the higher price? If it was merchants' barley, how should that come into the calculation to obtain the average price for barley sold off the farm in order to arrive at the deficiency payments which should be made?
All of us who are growers of barley know that it is normal for the barley, after it has left the farmer, to be sold not once but perhaps five or six times from one merchant to another, and that that practice increased during the past season. If the barley was bought by merchants and stored and then sold at a higher price later on and the price remained higher for a period, it seems to me that the farmers will not get the amount of deficiency payment which the Government indicate that they should get, the difference between the price at which the


barley is sold from the farm and the average market price spread over the season. I imagine that there is great difficulty in arriving at a fair deficiency payment to make up the difference between the guaranteed price and the market price, and I wonder how the Government work it out.
There is also the general position. I am a grower of barley. Last year I combined one field at harvest-time. I thought I would get rid of it while the going was good. I took a sample to market. A merchant offered me 75s. per quarter. I said, "That is a low price, is it not?" The merchant replied, "Yes, but you will get deficiency payments." I went to another merchant in Norwich market, and he offered me exactly the same amount. Again, I said that it was a low price, and he also replied, "Yes, but you will get deficiency payments."
Does the fact that this scheme with a deficiency payment is in operation influence buyers of barley to the extent that they will offer a lower price than they would have done if there had not been any deficiency payment? If so, the benefit of the subsidy is going not to the farmers but to the merchants, the maltsters and the manufacturers of feeding stuffs and other things. This system of deficiency payments is undermining the moral fibre of a free market. We must either have a free market and allow it to operate or we must have a system of fixed prices. A system of deficiency payments like this is just a godsend to those who are there to buy.
The position as it worked out this last year was that the buyers, after harvest, could give any price that they liked. There was sufficient evidence to show that they had all laid their heads together and offered about the same price for the same quality barley. Therefore, the Government have transferred from the Ministry of Food the job of fixing a price that should be fair to the producer and fair to the taxpayer to an organisation of merchants who meet secretly some, where and fix the price for their own advantage, and this meeting has the power to decide how much subsidy the Chancellor of the Exchequer shall pay out. The right hon. Gentleman never knows, he cannot estimate at the begin-

ning of the season how much subsidy he will pay on barley or wheat or oats. Somebody does, however, and that somebody is represented by those who operate on the markets.
Can we justify that as a permanent system of our agricultural policy? If so, it looks to me as if it will be a very costly one for the taxpayer. I think that it is neither fair to the farming community nor to the taxpayer, and if, in between, those manufacturers and millers have been able to increase their profits at the rate at which they are doing it, it is time that we tried to get a different and a better and a fairer system.
It has been pointed out already that the price of wheat today is roughly 21s. a cwt., but the price of milling offals is 28s. a cwt. and the price of flour will be above that. So that the difference between the purchasing price of that portion of wheat which comes from the home production and the end-product has become wider than ever.
There is another aspect of this matter. I was speaking at a village meeting at Nordelph—the hon. Gentleman may have gone down there as well—and one of his supporters, a well-known Conservative farmer, asked me at the meeting whether I realised that he had been able to buy good wheat at £22 or £23 a ton. He also told me how many tons he had bought and that he was a pig keeper. He thought it was a good thing that he should be able to buy good wheat at that low price to feed to his pip. The question I want to ask is: what was there to stop him selling that wheat for milling purposes and then getting a subsidy on it? What is there to stop English farmers buying cheap French wheat, keeping it on their farms and eventually selling it and getting the subsidy?
Is this foolproof or is it not? I was informed by somebody who had made investigations that in the south-western counties they were doing this and that officials had to investigate. If there is no means of checking wheat that has once been sold off the farm by marking it or by any other method, and it can be sold again and the subsidy is payable, then there is a fundamental weakness in the system. The House must be assured that that is not so.

Major H. Legge-Bourke: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that early in July, I think, a return of the acreage of wheat that a farmer expects to harvest this year has to be rendered. Calculation of the amount of wheat that the farmer eventually harvests is based on what he put originally in the return.

Mr. Dye: Is not the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that production per acre varies very considerably, and that one farmer may have six sacks to an acre and that another farmer may get twelve sacks? Has he in his mind any proof that such a thing as I have suggested could not happen? I am asking, because I think the public will want to know.

Major Legge-Bourke: I understood that what the hon. Gentleman was suggesting was that in recent months a farmer was able to buy imported wheat and that he could try to market it as his own. I am telling him that soon after actually drilling the wheat the farmer has to render a return of the acreage he has drilled. I grant that the deficiency payment is not based on acreage. I appreciate that, but surely the hon. Gentleman is stressing the point a little too much when he suggests that such a farmer would buy imported wheat and add it to his own.

Mr. Dye: I am not suggesting that. I am asking what are the safeguards against it, because it was brought to my notice that certain officials had to make investigations on farms in relation to this. I think that the general public should be assured that abuses of this character cannot be of a widespread nature.
On the subject of barley, I notice that the Ministry is considering export licences, or something like that, for a certain quantity of barley after harvest. After the last harvest a considerable quantity of barley was exported from the eastern counties and the farmers received 22s. or 23s. per cwt. for it, so they would be subsidised. Are we to continue subsidising the export of barley from here to Denmark and other Continental countries? If so, what ground have we for complaint against the French dumping their wheat in this country? Later in the year we were buying imported barley at far greater prices than £22 or £23 per ton. It seems stupid to subsidise the export of barley in September and October

and then, later in the season, to import barley at a much higher price.
This occurred during the past season. I understand that the Ministry consider that the same thing will happen this year. If so, it seems to me to be hopelessly wrong and that this free market will lure us into many pitfalls. As we on this side want to get back to an agricultural policy with a sound basis, we must ask the Government for proper safeguards. The Government must answer the questions I have asked if we are to assure the public in general that our agricultural policy is sound and if we are to limit the amount that comes from the Exchequer year by year.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Nugent: Might I try to answer some of the points which have been put from both sides of the House? First of all, there was the important point which the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye) made, namely the charge that farmers in the south-west were offering to sell wheat which had been imported from France, or other wheat which they had not grown, and then claiming the subsidy. I noticed, incidentally, that he chose an area a long way from East Anglia.

Mr. Dye: I did not choose it.

Mr. Nugent: Well, I think that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) was right in what he has said. It must be remembered that there is an elaborate system of checking. A large proportion of growers' returns are checked.

Mr. Dye: One-third?

Mr. Nugent: I would rather not give a figure; I agree, not the whole, but a large proportion of them. The acreage is checked, and then the tonnage sold off the farm is checked, and between the two we can judge pretty accurately whether a farmer has sold wheat which he could not have grown according to the acreage which he had. So, I can give the hon. Member and the House the assurance that the system of checking is adequate—and I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely that it would be a rare exception to find a farmer who would do this sort of


thing—to prevent such a defalcation as the hon. Member suggests.
Various anxieties were expressed with regard to the sales of barley in February, when the prices were high, compared with sales in the autumn when prices were lower, and I was asked how the returns were calculated. The top part of the price scale was so truncated as to take the malting barley sales out of the average net return, so that the guaranteed prices were related to the feeding stuffs price for barley. The farmer who sold in the autumn made a lower price than the average he would have received had he sold at a different time. But that is one of the aspects to which we want farmers to direct their attention. We want farmers to sell when the consumers want it and not to push huge quantities of barley on to the market when the demand is not there. There is a need for the farmer to help not only in providing the quality, but also in timing; and that is important to the farmer, since it affects the return which he gets.
The man who sells his wheat in January certainly obtains a better market price than the man selling in May or June. But the deficiency payment will be correspondingly higher in order to bring the gross return—that is the average market price, plus the deficiency payment —up to the guaranteed price. Our intention is that there should be something like a £5 a ton differential between wheat sold last autumn and that sold now. We have tried to encourage farmers to provide themselves with conditioning and storage plant so that they can market their wheat in an orderly fashion, and that I am glad to say they have done so.
The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Philips Price) expressed anxiety in asking if I thought that English wheat was being sold too cheaply. I would remind him that there is a free market in wheat. Imported wheat comes into this country and combines with the home-produced crop in a free market, which is at very much the same level as the world market. We import annually between 4 and 5 million tons—rather less than in pre-war days—and that combines with some 2,500,000 tons produced in this country to make the whole wheat market.

Mr. Philips Price: Is not there a very large wheat import, and can the Minister explain why this is so and give the amount?

Mr. Nugent: I think that the answer is simple. If we are to import into this country between 4 million and 5 million tons a year, which is the normal import, we must be importing something like 400,000 tons every month, which are huge quantities. That is the normal picture. We normally use something like 70 per cent. to 75 per cent. of imported wheat in the grist for the flour for making our bread. Rather more than half of our home-produced wheat goes for milling; the remainder of it goes for feeding stuffs. That is to say, over a million tons of home-produced wheat goes for feeding stuffs, and the merchants and compound manufacturers are in direct competition with the millers.
All kinds of ugly accusations have been made against the millers. I wonder on what grounds they are made. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity of substantiating those statements. But we have no evidence for them, and they are not nice accusations to make; nevertheless the right hon. Gentleman made them. No doubt in due course he will produce figures to substantiate them.
Meanwhile, let me say that, apart altogether from what competition there is between the millers themselves, the feeding stuffs merchants are in direct competition with the millers for the wheat, and the home-grown wheat which does not go for milling goes for feeding stuffs. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have accused the feeding stuffs merchants of being in "rings." They have said that buyers generally are putting their heads together. Really! There are something like 2,000 merchants throughout the country. They all buy grain. Some are compound manufacturers on their own account. A large number are in competition with the big compounders. Do hon. Gentlemen opposite seriously suggest that it is possible for 2,000 merchants to put their heads together and agree prices from day to day? It is ridiculous.

Mr. Dye: Does not the hon. Gentleman read the circulars that go round to


them from their own associations suggesting the prices?

Mr. Nugent: They do not suggest the prices; they give the market reports. These men are in business to make their living. If they can buy grain cheaper than the fellow next door and so get more custom, they will do so. If they did not do that, they would find themselves out of business very quickly.
The fact is that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite either will not or cannot understand the working of a free market. These men are in business to make their living. If they fix a price which is unreasonably low farmers will not sell to them. The farmers themselves are in the market. How is it possible for the merchants, 2,000 of them, to get together and fix the price against the farmers? If any particular merchant offers a farmer an unfairly low price, the farmer simply goes to another merchant. It is as simple as that.

Mr. Dye: Is it?

Mr. Nugent: It certainly is.

Mr. Dye: Would the hon. Gentleman like to undertake to sell my barley after the harvest?

Mr. Nugent: If the hon. Member cannot understand how to sell his own barley, I think that he is very little qualified to come here and tell the House of the failures of the free market. The fact is that—

Mr. Dye: I was not born with a silver spoon in my mouth.

Mr. Nugent: Did the hon. Gentleman wish to interrupt me? The fact is that the hon. Gentleman has completely distorted the working of the market.
To return to the more serious aspect of the anxiety of the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West, I can assure him that here there is a live competitive market. What does not go to the miller goes in feeding stuffs to the individual farmers. It is used in compounds by the compounders or bought direct by the farmers and fed to poultry. That absorbs some 600,000 or 700,000 tons of wheat direct, where farmers buy it from the merchant direct as grain. So there is a really live and competitive market.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no evidence whatever of these very ugly accusations of "rings" either with the millers or the feeding stuffs merchants. In fact, our impression is that both sections are serving the community, and the farming community, well, and that their margins are reasonable. If right hon. Gentlemen opposite have any evidence to the contrary, we shall be very ready to look at it and to take the necessary action.
I turn now to the further point which was put to me by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Renton) on the question of the French wheat. We now have a free market and merchants are free to import whatever grain is available from whatever part of the world they like to meet the consumer demand here both for the milling trade, for human consumption, and for feeding stuffs. Bearing in mind that we are importing some 7 to 8 million tons of wheat and coarse grains every year, it is clearly to the advantage of the livestock feeders to buy grain—whether it is maize, barley, oats or wheat—as cheaply as we can get it. We should bear in mind also, in relation to the subsidy, that when the feeding stuffs for our pigs and poultry is cheaper we get an immediate reaction in the feeding stuff formula which, in the course of a few months, directly reduces the guaranteed price for eggs and pigs and thereby reduces the subsidy. For the rest of it, the price of that which goes to feed the dairy herd will be taken into account at the following Price Review.
So in this question of French wheat—and one hears a great deal about it these days—the quantities that are imported are significant, amounting to about 180,000 tons in 1953–54 and about double that this year, but in the context of so many millions of tons of cereals that are imported altogether it is not a very great figure. Our own farmers are fully protected with the deficiency payments system, and looking at the broad picture, not only of cereal production but of livestock production as well, there is clearly nothing to fear here. If we go on providing our livestock feeders with cheaper feeding stuffs, that is going to be to the advantage of everyone.
I am not going to bother the House with the figures of the Election results


of the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown). No doubt everyone knows them.

Mr. G. Brown: You got in first.

Mr. Nugent: There is no novelty in it now, but mine would make better reading than those of the right hon. Gentleman. As for his argument, Members opposite must accept the fact—although I do not have the time to go into great detail—that there is no halfway house between a complete system of control or State trading and a free market. We have been through the business of de-control and we have had to consider whether to do it commodity by commodity, or just how we would handle it. I well remember the arguments put in 1952 when we were considering how we could free the cereal industry and how we could end feeding stuffs rationing. That seemed to be one of the first things we could do, and we considered various measures whereby we could do it in stages; how we might be able to do it one cereal at a time.
We were driven to the conclusion that there was no half-way house: it was a matter either of freeing the lot or State trading in the lot, and we decided to free the lot. I have no doubt that in the outcome not only the farming community —in seeing the end of feeding stuff rationing—but also the country as a whole have benefited enormously. The alternative of working a system of support prices with Government buying did not bear examination when we looked at it. We have had one year of it. In the first year of de-control, 1953–54, we operated a support price system with the Government standing ready to buy what the farmers could not sell at the guaranteed prices.
It is difficult to compare the cost of the two systems. Actually, that system cost some £34 million for that year. But I am not comparing like with like, and I would advise the House not to draw conclusions from that. But I do make the point that if we are obliged to buy in great quantities of grain from the market in order to implement the guarantee, the handling costs alone will run out at from £6 to £7 a ton, quite apart from trading losses. Those are the kind of factors that one runs into when one goes back to the system of State buying and fixed prices.
I do not wish to recapitulate the whole of the argument put forward in the debate last month, but I reiterate that, on top, there is the problem of the trading loss. The whole experience of these big trading undertakings by Government has shown that Government cannot operate these systems without running into a serious loss if full supplies are to be maintained. In times of shortage when the demand is more than enough to take up the whole supply, it is naturally easy to avoid a trading loss, but when supplies are sufficient, and when they cannot be rationed, there is no way in the world for the trading commission or the Government to protect themselves against an enormous trading loss. We have the complete example of that happening in practice with the Raw Cotton Commission which finished up in its last two years with a trading loss of between £40 million and £45 million.
We are quite convinced that if we tried to operate a scheme on the lines suggested by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite of a trading commission dealing in all wheat and some sort of regulatory scheme for barley, we should first be compelled to control all cereals owing to the interchangeability of wheat with coarse grains because it is not solely a milling commodity. Therefore, if we had a control system for wheat we should be forced to take control of barley and oats as well. It would not be possible to deal in only one of them.
We are quite convinced that if we tried to operate such a system and to assure sufficient supplies for the feeding stuff and the human consumption markets, the losses would be astronomical. In order to protect the public purse we should be driven to allocating supplies and keeping the market short in order to protect ourselves against enormous losses. I am not making a party point but simply relating partially facts and partially experience of what we have seen with other commodity commissions and taking into account a great deal of very wise judgment from the experts in our own Department.
The conclusion to be drawn from it all is that there is no half-way house. We must either have a free market, as we have now—and the deficiency payment in no way affects the free working


of the market; it is the one system of guaranteed prices which does not affect the free working of the market—or a complete control system. In the latter system we should be driven to shortening supplies, and unless we wanted to see stuff going under the counter we should be driven to rationing.
That argument is really irrefutable, and when right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite complain in the country of what they think are the abuses in the present system, they are not really facing the facts. The only alternative to this system of a free market is to go back to a complete trading system and then be forced to go back to allocation and rationing.

Mr. G. Brown: No.

Mr. Nugent: The right hon. Gentleman has yet to explain how he is going to to do this in detail. If he can, then he is a very clever man, but he certainly has not done so up to date.

Mr. Brown: Having dealt with what he thinks we believe in, will the hon. Gentleman say whether there is no way in the system which he prefers of preventing the drain of money from the taxpayer's purse ultimately to the trade as is now going on?

Mr. Nugent: I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is going to the trade. It is not. What determines the deficiency payment now paid is the difference between the price level which we have guaranteed and the average market price level. The average market price level is the free market price. It is the equilibrium between supply and demand. It is directly related to the world market price. Whatever the trade may be able to control here, and it certainly does not have the control which the right hon. Gentleman thinks it has, it cannot control

the world markets. The world markets are directly related to the market here. Imports and exports are free, as has been remarked. There is a completely free competitive market here now.
When I say that the market price level is what determines what the deficiency payment will be, I do make the point that the deficiency payment goes to the producer to make up the difference between what the market returns to him and the price level we have guaranteed. We have seen it working in the past year. Wheat had a substantial deficiency payment of about £10. The payment on barley was heavy at first, and then because demand exceeded supply the price rose and the deficiency payment was lower. It was the same regarding oats. At first it looked as though the deficiency payment would be heavy, but up went the price, and there has been no deficiency payment.
The same thing may happen in future with wheat. He would be a rash man who tried to forecast the future course of world market prices. It may be that next year, or the year after, the world wheat price level will be higher than it is now. If it is, the deficiency payment will be lower. Those are the facts. There is no basis for the right hon. Gentleman thinking, as he persists in doing, that the deficiency payment is going to the merchants. It is not. They are operating efficiently and competitively.
I commend this Measure to the House. The deficiency payments system has been working well. I have every expectation that it will continue to do so, and ask the House to approve the Order.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Cereals (Deficiency Payments) Order. 1955, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th April, 1955, in the last Parliament, be approved.

GOLD COAST (INTERNATIONAL MINERS' DELEGATION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Godber.]

11.8 p.m.

Mr. William Blyton: I raise a question tonight in relation to the Gold Coast. The Gold Coast people have travelled a good way along the road towards self-government in recent years. It would be an understatement to say that they are at the final stage before independence. It is the aim of all hon. Members on this side of the House to encourage the growth in this country of the social, economic, and political institutions which will foster a democratic spirit. We believe that it is our duty to aid and guide this young country with its institutions along the path of the Western democratic free world.
One issue which must concern us is the encouragement and growth of the trade unions in the Gold Coast. We welcome the growth of the trade unions in the Commonwealth. The standard of life of the colonial peoples cannot be genuinely raised until the trade unions have become strong. The issue is whether the spirit of trade unionism in the Colonies can be created from outside. In Europe, and especially in Britain, the trade unions have grown up from the bitter and tragic struggles of the working class to get a standard of living from their employers. We want, if possible, to avoid the colonial workers having to undergo that experience. I recognise that only a small proportion of colonial inhabitants have a real conception of the fundamentals of trade unionism, and that much work has to be done in adult education to teach the principles of collective bargaining and the conciliation methods of the Western world's trade unions.
This brings me to the question, "Are trade unions being encouraged in the Gold Coast?" The Minister may reply that this is a matter for the Government of the Gold Coast, for which he is not responsible; but if employers with nineteenth-century minds towards trade unions create bitterness and resentment among colonial peoples by their actions,

the responsibility is ours for maintaining the peace of that Colony. It is because of the bitterness and resentment of the Gold Coast miners against the Chamber of Mines over the refusal to allow the miners to accompany an international miners' delegation on its visit to the mines there, that I would like an expression to go from this House of our disgust at the attitude of the Gold Coast Chamber of Mines.
The Miners' International comprises 25 countries of the free world. Representations were made to it in 1954 to go to the Gold Coast to see the conditions of the miners, study the regulations for safety in the industry, see whether the employees' unions were lacking in organisation, and what was necessary for progress and advancement in negotiations, agreements and conciliation methods. These were laudable objects with a view to helping to establish free trade unions and to increase the efficiency of the Miners' Union of the Gold Coast.
In a letter on 28th December, 1954, the Chairman of the Gold Coast Chamber of Mines said:
With regard to the forthcoming visit to the Gold Coast of a delegation from the Miners' International Federation, the Chamber of Mines will certainly co-operate with the Gold Coast Union to make the visit a pleasant and successful one.
In a letter dated 24th January to the Gold Coast Employees' Union Executive and the local branch secretary of the union in the area, the Chamber of Mines agreed that they could accompany the delegation at each of their properties. On 5th January, in the "Ashanti Pioneer," the local paper, there was published the fact of the delegation's arrival, giving the dates upon which several meetings would be held. The paper mentioned dates upon which visits to the properties would take place. The paper gave seven dates, but the draft programme worked out by the Miners' Union mentioned 11 dates. This little incident gave rise to conduct which can only be described as childish and something not expected from the intelligent men who comprise the employers in the Chamber of Mines. It is really an attempt to use methods against trade unions which are out of date in the twentieth century. The general manager of the Chamber of Mines wrote to the Commissioner of Labour complaining that, in view of the unions' behaviour at


the board of inquiry, the delegation could not be invited to visit the Chamber of Mines' property.
The leader of this delegation was the Vice-President of the National Union of Mineworkers, Mr. Edward Jones, who is a highly respected member of the trade union movement. They left London on 27th February and, after a week in Nigeria, they landed at Accra on 6th March. They then received a letter dated 28th February from the Chamber of Mines stating that the manner in which the local union had treated the Chamber of Mines and the mine officials made it impossible for them to allow the local branch officials of the miners' executive of the Gold Coast to accompany them to the property, although they invited Mr. Jones and the delegation to attend.
A meeting was held which was attended by the general manager, the president of the union, and the delegation, and the Miners' Union strenuously denied any responsibility for the publication of the draft itinerary of the visit. This had been the main bone of contention, and in the light of the union's denial the Chamber of Mines were asked to reconsider their decision and to invite the local miners to attend with the delegation.
I do not know what state of mind prevails among these people, for the union stated they were not responsible and yet, despite that, the general manager sent a letter which, I think, is a disgrace. He laid down two conditions which had to be complied with before the invitation would be extended to them. First, the Gold Coast Mines Employees' Union must express regret for the rudeness with which they treated the Chamber of Mines. Secondly, if the visit of the international delegation was made the opportunity for any kind of further rudeness, the visit would be terminated instantly and the visit to the remaining mines would be cancelled. I have been a local lodge official for 25 years, and I have had a row with every manager who ever worked at my pit. If the miners had received a letter like that the pits would never have been worked.
The general manager of the Chamber of Mines must be a touchy individual, and it is apparent that there will be no encouragement from him in the development of the trade unions on the Gold Coast. Is there any trade union with any

self-respect or dignity which could accept a letter of that character in the face of having denied the main charge against it?
The union made a dignified reply and stated that they could not accept the implications. The international delegation said they could not accept the dictates of the Chamber of Mines and that, as the Gold Coast miners were an integral part of the Miners' International, they refused to go to the property of the Chamber of Mines. Was there ever a more flimsy excuse? Simply because someone in the local paper published the draft itinerary of the visit, all this bitterness and resentment has been created.
Mr. Jones made a statement when he left. I will not read it all but will give what I consider to be the main part of his statement. He said:
We were, to say the least, surprised that there was no one in the Gold Coast, either among eminent mining engineers, or among the high officials of the Chamber, entrusted with sufficient authority to authorise visits to mines without permission having to be granted by people in London. This must be for them a most undignified and humiliating position, which, in our experience, could not be encountered anywhere else in the world. We desire to express our deepest thanks to the Ministers of the Gold Coast Government and their departmental officials … which have been of great assistance and have throughout shown a forbearance and spirit not emulated by the Chamber of Mines.
The net result of this has been tragic. The Bureau of the Miners' International, which comprises 25 nations, is so disgusted and bitter about the affair that it has passed a resolution regretting the attitude of the Chamber of Mines and has decided now to examine ways and means whereby the anti-trade union attitude of the Chamber in Accra can be met.
There is no doubt that the Chamber of Mines ought to have some lessons in human relations. It is tragic that a delegation which set out with the high purpose of inculcating into the Gold Coast our method of trade union activity should have met such anti-trade union employers as those in the Chamber of Mines. It is our ambition that, as they develop to independence, our Colonies will join the British Commonwealth. How can we expect to bring them with us if such conduct as that of the Chamber of Mines—

Mr. Tudor Watkins: Chamber of horrors.

Mr. Blyton: —creates mistrust and bitterness against us?
I want to thank the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs, who met us with great courtesy before the General Election. I would interpolate that the representative of the Chamber of Mines whom I met gave us very little satisfaction at all during the whole business. I realise that the Minister has a difficult task, but I think he ought to say that the Government intend to encourage trade unionism in the Colonies and are against this anti-trade union attitude. It ought also to go out from this House that the Chamber of Mines in Accra ought to show some forbearance and a different spirit to the trade unions. For the Governor of the Gold Coast we have nothing but high praise, and we thank him very greatly indeed for the high tribute he paid the delegation for the work it did under such trying circumstances.
There is no doubt that the attitude exhibited in the Gold Coast has done great damage. We shall do all in our power to fight the anti-trade union attitude in the Chamber of Mines. We shall at the same time still try to guide the trade unions of the Gold Coast in the path of the Western pattern of free world trade unionism. Not to do this would mean that they would come under other influences. In this process the Government can help, and the owners of the companies can also do so by having in the Chamber of Mines men with a more radical outlook on life instead of the vicious outlook that now prevails. In that way we can lay a sure foundation so that, when they become independent, our Colonies will join us in the British Commonwealth.

11.25 p.m.

Mr. J. Idwal Jones: I have listened with considerable interest to my hon. Friends, and I have been surprised beyond words at the treatment meted out to trade union representatives. I am surprised because of my personal knowledge of Mr. Edward Jones. I have this particular knowledge from many years of intimate personal relationship with Mr. Jones. I know his manner, I understand his outlook, and I know his integrity and his tolerance. He has been Chairman of the Wrexham Trades Council for many years, he is a justice of the peace as well

as vice-president of the National Union of Mineworkers. These positions of trust speak of the ability, integrity and high regard in which he is held in North Wales and in the National Union of Mineworkers. Mr. Edward Jones is a man of sound and mature judgment. He is cool, amiable and thoroughly disinterested in his approach to industrial problems. If he has one guiding motive it is his passion for establishing harmonious relationships based on the principles of justice.
I saw Mr. Edward Jones the night before he left for the Gold Coast, and I can assure the House that he left inspired with a sense of his mission and of his great responsibility. He was ready to give from the wealth of his personal experience, experience gained from the school of life. He realises that trade unionism in the Gold Coast is in its infancy. It is a child which needs all the advice and guidance which can be given. If this young and as yet immature trade union movement is to grow into a responsible movement which will foster peace, harmony, understanding and justice, it needs guidance, and I can assure this House that no person is better fitted by experience or more inspired by harmonious relationships and justice than Mr. Edward Jones.
I am proud to give this testimony on the Floor of this House. If the attitude which we have heard here tonight is that taken towards our most trustworthy trade union leaders, then it does not augur well for the future. We cannot be quiet on these benches. The wind may be sown today, but others will have to reap the whirlwind.

11.28 p.m.

Mr. Harold Finch: Those of us who have listened to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) must view with deep concern the treatment meted out to the representatives of the Miner's International on their visit to the Gold Coast. The history of this matter has been well given by my hon. Friend, and I do not want to enlarge upon it. However, I want to point out that here is an international body representing 25 organisations, a responsible trade union organisation. Sir William Lawther, its secretary, and Mr. Edward Jones, the vice-president of the National Union of


Mine Workers, were appointed to visit the Gold Coast. Acting simply on information given in the Press about the itinerary of the visit, Mr. Edward Jones with his colleague, as representing the Miners' International, was refused permission to go with the representative of the local union to visit the properties of the mines on the Gold Coast.
That is a very serious matter. All we are asking is that we should have a statement from the right hon. Gentleman as to his attitude on this matter at the very time when we are trying to build up responsible trade unionism and good citizenship in the Gold Coast. This has come as a staggering blow to those of us who are attached to the Trade Union movement, and it calls for a statement from the Minister as to his attitude in respect of our endeavours to bring about a better feeling in the Gold Coast.

11.29 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): I am indebted to the three hon. Gentlemen, the Members for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton), Wrexham (Mr. Idwal Jones) and Bedwellty (Mr. Finch), for the brevity with which they have put forward a cause about which, quite understandably, they feel strongly. No doubt other constitutionally-minded people might be a little uncertain as to my exact standing in this matter in view of the large measure of internal self-government in the Gold Coast, but I would like this opportunity of repeating certain fundamental truths. We believe in the immense role the Trade Union movement can play in British Colonial Territories, and, not the least, the contribution that I hope we have made to the developing self-governing territories in the Commonwealth is a recognition of that simple but very important fact.
Anything which ministers to trade union advancement in its proper field we will certainly gladly support. Anything which might be regarded as a reflection on the Trade Union movement we would most certainly wholeheartedly condemn. I know that the Trade Union movement in the Gold Coast maintains its original purpose—the organisation of its workers to look after their wages and conditions. Like all three hon. Members who have spoken tonight, I am very unhappy about what happened on this

visit. I join with those hon. Members in the tribute they paid to Sir Charles Arden-Clarke, the Governor of the Gold Coast, and I join with Sir Charles in endorsing the value of the delegation's visit in what I recognise were difficult circumstances.
I will not go into the background of this unhappy dispute. There has been a good deal of misunderstanding about it. There has been a meeting here presided over by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs, who could not be here tonight, and because he could not be here I wanted, by coming myself, to show the respect in which we hold visits of this kind by responsible trade union bodies and the desire, about which I feel strongly, that they should be given every possible facility.
I will not go over the story, because I think the time left to me now would not allow me to do it. Perhaps I could content myself by saying these few words. The whole of the business appears to have arisen from a number of misunderstandings due to the strained relations that were existing at the time of the visit that had nothing whatever to do with the International Federation—the relations between the Gold Coast Union and the Chamber. The whole question must be looked at against the background of the relations of the Chamber and the union at the time.
I am particularly sorry that this embarrassing situation should have arisen in the case of a visit of such a distinguished trade union figure as Mr. Edward Jones, the vice-president of the National Union of Mineworkers, whose work for good labour relations is known throughout the world. I know that all associated with the Government of the Gold Coast and the British Colonial Administration will join with me in regretting any distress that he may have been caused.
But, in fairness, I must say that when the union said in effect that they could not express regret for this publication because they denied responsibility, perhaps they might also have risen above protocol and just said a few words of regret. Nonetheless, I think that there has been a great deal too much standing on dignity on both sides in this matter. I think that the most fruitful consequence of it is that we should not attempt to do more than point the moral and hope


that something has been learned out of this incident and that good manners will in future prevail so that we shall not have a repetition.
This is an unhappy story. It is one which I hope will not happen again. It is not for me to issue invitations to other peoples' gatherings, but it might not be a bad idea if something along these lines could happen. Why should not another visit take place—another visit without any incident of this kind, so that the memory of this unfortunate business might be wiped out and a really harmonious and happy and co-operative result might be achieved? I make this suggestion because I am anxious that we should, as far as possible, use misunderstandings in order to create better conditions in future, but I should not like it to be thought that in answering this debate I felt otherwise than this.
British industry and British firms in West Africa and elsewhere have immense obligations, and much is due to them for the work that they have done. I hope that in a possible future visit some of the unhappy memories of this affair could be wiped out, so that we could all face the future together in a more profitable way.

11.35 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: I should like, on behalf of my hon. Friends, to thank the right hon. Gentleman for having come here tonight and for having made what I think we all agree was a very fine statement. This was a most unfortunate affair. I am myself a member of the National Union of Mineworkers, and Mr. Edward Jones is an old friend of mine. The Colonial Secretary knows how helpful that union has been in Africa and other territories, where its great help and experience has been freely available, and, like him, I hope that a return visit under happier circumstances may remove bitter memories. At least, I can believe that my hon. Friends have rendered a service to good relations with the Colonies, and I should like to thank the Colonial Secretary for having made the remarks he has so that we can send out a message from this House which, we all pray, will do something to help the constructive role of the trade unions in our Colonies.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes to Twelve o'clock.